Boris Johnson urged UK to continue Saudi arms sales after funeral bombing

[shaz619]

Letters between foreign secretary and Liam Fox reveal UK weapons exports were under review following the bombing of a funeral in Yemen

"

Boris Johnson pressed Liam Fox to continue exports of weapons to Saudi Arabia after the bombing of a funeral in Yemen last October that killed more than 140 people and was condemned by UN monitors.

Correspondence between the ministers shows that a month after the strike, Johnson, the foreign secretary, wrote: “I am aware you have deferred a decision on four export licence applications to supply the Royal Saudi Air Force with equipment which could be used in the conflict in Yemen.”

In the letter dated 8 November, Johnson advised the trade secretary it was right to proceed with the arms sales. “The issue is extremely finely balanced, but I judge at present that the Saudis appear committed both to improving processes and to taking action to address failures/individual incidents,” he said.

The foreign secretary added that the Saudis had given the UK commitments in the aftermath of the airstrike on the funeral in Sana’a that meant “the ‘clear risk’ threshold for refusal … has not yet been reached”.

Fox then recommended that the licences be approved in the light of the assessment provided by the foreign secretary, but in his reply dated 17 November added that the situation remained risky and that he “must insist” on regular updates on the situation in Yemen.

The trade secretary wrote to Johnson: “I agree that this is an extremely complex situation and that the issue of clear risk is extremely finely balanced. In the light of your assessment and [REDACTED] recent advice I accept that we should continue, for the present, to assess export licences for Saudi Arabia on a case-by-case basis.”

But he added: “In doing so I want to be very clear with you about the risks inherent in making this decision, not just because of the grave situation in Yemen.”

The letters were among documents disclosed in court proceedings this week, as the NGO Campaign Against Arms Trade faced the government in a judicial review of the decision to continue licensing arms exports to Saudi Arabia despite the kingdom’s widely criticised offensive in Yemen.

The 8 October airstrike on the funeral in the Yemeni capital was among the bloodiest incidents in a conflict that has cost the lives of at least 4,600 civilians, according to the UN.

A hall was bombed as a funeral was taking place, with hundreds present. Minutes later, as people tried to help the wounded, a second airstrike hit in a “double-tap”, leading to further deaths, including those of rescuers.

A UN report seen by Reuters found that 140 people were killed and hundreds more injured, and that the attack had breached international humanitarian law. The coalition acknowledged it had mistakenly targeted the funeral based on incorrect information.

Fox delayed signing off on further weapons exports to the Saudi air force following the strike, the correspondence suggested.

The government’s top export official, Edward Bell, wrote on 28 October that his department was consulting the Foreign Office to see whether there was a clear risk exports could be used to break the laws of war. He added: “We are making contingencies should licensing policy change.”

Under UK export rules, licences should not be approved if there is a clear risk the weapons could be used for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Saudi Arabia is Britain’s most important weapons client: the government has signed off sales of more than £3.3bn since March 2015, when the kingdom led a coalition of Middle Eastern countries in an attempt to push Houthi rebels out of the Yemeni capital.

Johnson visited Saudi Arabia in December, days after an embarrassing row when comments he had made about the Kingdom engaging in "proxy wars" in the Middle East surfaced.

He wrote to Fox that he was able to discuss these issues at first hand with the Saudi leadership, and noted an “encouraging positive trend” to reduce the risks of serious breaches of IHL. He therefore recommended that sales should continue, even though the US had recently blocked a sale of precision-guided munitions to the country.

A spokesman for the UK government said: “The UK is playing a leading role in work to find a political solution to the conflict in Yemen and to address the humanitarian crisis.

“We operate one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and keep our defence exports to Saudi Arabia under careful and continual review. Given the current legal proceedings we will not be commenting further outside of court at this stage.”

The Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Tom Brake MP said: “It is up to the courts to rule whether Johnson and Fox have broken the law, but there is no doubt that they have trampled over the spirit of the law, which is in place to scrutinise the sale of weapons, uphold British values and protect human rights.

“Saudi Arabia’s vicious campaign in Yemen has cost thousands of lives and left a country in ruins, and this Tory government are complicit in that tragedy.”

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, the SNP’s international trade spokeswoman, called Johnson’s letter “truly sickening”. She said: “It is clear from this revelation that the foreign secretary has absolutely no moral compass. Instead of immediately halting arms sales to Saudi Arabia or challenging the human rights violations happening every day in Yemen, he is actively encouraging arms sales. It raises serious questions about whether Boris Johnson is fit to be foreign secretary.”

The Green party’s co-leader Jonathan Bartley said the letters showed a “stunning disregard” for human rights on Johnson’s part. He said: “Johnson has shown utter contempt not just for the 140 people who lost their lives in the Sana’a bombing, but also for the people whose lives he put at risk with this terrible decision.

“Britain should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia immediately. UK weapons must not be used to violate international law and human rights.”

Documents disclosed on Tuesday revealed that earlier in the year Bell had advised then-business secretary Sajid Javid: “My gut tells me we should suspend,”the court heard. Javid wrote to the then-foreign secretary Philip Hammond and defence secretary Michael Fallon that he intended to continue granting licences, adding: “I would like your agreement that this is the right policy for us to pursue at the present.”

Half of the case has been heard in secret as the government wants to rely on sensitive material that it says would damage national security if heard in open court.

"

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ntinue-saudi-arms-sales-after-funeral-bombing

 

[shaz619]

A spokesman for the UK government said: “The UK is playing a leading role in work to find a political solution to the conflict in Yemen and to address the humanitarian crisis.


) This has to be a joke right [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]

 

[shaz619]

We have all these export laws in the UK for show, when it comes to greed no one abides by them. Johnson and the Tory Government should be punished for their crimes.

 

[KingKhanWC]

A spokesman for the UK government said: “The UK is playing a leading role in work to find a political solution to the conflict in Yemen and to address the humanitarian crisis.


) This has to be a joke right [MENTION=43583]KingKhanWC[/MENTION]

You couldn't make this up.

Previously Boris stated Saudi were not in breach of any international humanitarian law but even with evidence of bombing innocent people he still finds a way to defend arms sales. This was after bombings of hospitals and reports of over 60% of civilians deaths were a result of airstrikes. It's in their interests to further war and paranoia to sell more fighter jets and bombs. A terrible situation which will lead to Saudi becoming a dangerous place for it's people.

 

[shaz619]

You couldn't make this up.

Previously Boris stated Saudi were not in breach of any international humanitarian law but even with evidence of bombing innocent people he still finds a way to defend arms sales. This was after bombings of hospitals and reports of over 60% of civilians deaths were a result of airstrikes. It's in their interests to further war and paranoia to sell more fighter jets and bombs. A terrible situation which will lead to Saudi becoming a dangerous place for it's people.

It's a reason why am no longer going to pursue a career in a certain field, may go into education to help inner city bache instead because there isn't a company which doesn't have a defence contract unfortunately and it's not just aero companies but a big % of engineering companies in general. I know that the creators of these weapons are not politicians but it's still on your conscious and honestly don't think am a corporate kind of guy, if it wasn't as big a deal I wouldn't have been asked the following question at an interview "So Mr. Shazzy Bear, besides all our civilian projects we are also working on x,y,z for the MOD; will this be an issue for you on any level?" the only negative is that the bear would be sacrificing ££££ he could really do with wonder what Sharjeel would do that guy cracks me up, he may have sold out for a chicken donner in naan what a guy, kasme I'd have bought him that in exchange for the 15 grain cricket bat he likes to use

They may delay exports but inevitably will ensure the sale of these weapons unfortunately and no one is held accountable for what comes after. For sure I understand that it boosts the economy but even then, they will use that money to pump more into "defence" rather then things like education, health care and quality of living in general. There are more halal ways to generate paisa, but man they get off on kuffir business and blood money! no sharam at all I tell ya

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] what do you make of all this nonsense, forgive me but my instincts suggest you tend to go a bit silent when faced with such intriguing topics of discussion besides the ones where we all get to throw Jeremy Corbyn into the River Thames

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's a reason why am no longer going to pursue a career in a certain field, may go into education to help inner city bache instead because there isn't a company which doesn't have a defence contract unfortunately and it's not just aero companies but a big % of engineering companies in general. I know that the creators of these weapons are not politicians but it's still on your conscious and honestly don't think am a corporate kind of guy, if it wasn't as big a deal I wouldn't have been asked the following question at an interview "So Mr. Shazzy Bear, besides all our civilian projects we are also working on x,y,z for the MOD; will this be an issue for you on any level?" the only negative is that the bear would be sacrificing ££££ he could really do with wonder what Sharjeel would do that guy cracks me up, he may have sold out for a chicken donner in naan what a guy, kasme I'd have bought him that in exchange for the 15 grain cricket bat he likes to use

They may delay exports but inevitably will ensure the sale of these weapons unfortunately and no one is held accountable for what comes after. For sure I understand that it boosts the economy but even then, they will use that money to pump more into "defence" rather then things like education, health care and quality of living in general. There are more halal ways to generate paisa, but man they get off on kuffir business and blood money! no sharam at all I tell ya

I totally agree with you bear, living with the guilt of helping mass murdering weapons to inflict carnage on the innocent is simply not worth it. My brother was in a similar position, he was offered a very good at the ministry of defence but rejected it for this very reason. A few months later he found a better job with more money in a company which has no such links. Too many people just ignore their role when they feel it's not them doing the actual killing but this is a lack of morality within their hearts. There are other businesses who make money in unethical ways but helping in the weapons industry or the military is slightly different as you have a more direct involvement in any war crimes. Pretty much like how Boris is acting and the excuses he is using, such as 'we are doing everything to stop Saudi bomb innocents, so if we provide the bombs and they use it on civilians our conscience is clear'.

Birmingham along with other cities is desperate for this type of work, helping young people who are involved in activities which will ruin their future lives. I know someone who works on a voluntary basis in Birmz so you don't have to have a paid job doing this but can help in your spare time. I think you would be very good at this brother.

 

[shaz619]

I totally agree with you bear, living with the guilt of helping mass murdering weapons to inflict carnage on the innocent is simply not worth it. My brother was in a similar position, he was offered a very good at the ministry of defence but rejected it for this very reason. A few months later he found a better job with more money in a company which has no such links. Too many people just ignore their role when they feel it's not them doing the actual killing but this is a lack of morality within their hearts. There are other businesses who make money in unethical ways but helping in the weapons industry or the military is slightly different as you have a more direct involvement in any war crimes. Pretty much like how Boris is acting and the excuses he is using, such as 'we are doing everything to stop Saudi bomb innocents, so if we provide the bombs and they use it on civilians our conscience is clear'.

Birmingham along with other cities is desperate for this type of work, helping young people who are involved in activities which will ruin their future lives. I know someone who works on a voluntary basis in Birmz so you don't have to have a paid job doing this but can help in your spare time. I think you would be very good at this brother.

That's good to hear about your bro, looks like fate rewarded his good intentions mA. True, it is also due to the foreign policy which has not changed much so even the arguments which on paper may seem a little logical become nonsensical in the grand scheme of things. They make a couple of statements here and there, "delay" exports but in the end nothing comes of substance which prevents the sale of these weapons, even in terms of our own interests there is more then enough power in terms of military supremacy they should just stop wasting so much money.

I've also read that in the inner city they desperately need good teachers in the struggling schools and many ethnic minorities are under-represented as well.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That's good to hear about your bro, looks like fate rewarded his good intentions mA. True, it is also due to the foreign policy which has not changed much so even the arguments which on paper may seem a little logical become nonsensical in the grand scheme of things. They make a couple of statements here and there, "delay" exports but in the end nothing comes of substance which prevents the sale of these weapons, even in terms of our own interests there is more then enough power in terms of military supremacy they should just stop wasting so much money.

I've also read that in the inner city they desperately need good teachers in the struggling schools and many ethnic minorities are under-represented as well.

I've heard the same, it's a vicious cycle unfortunately , lack of educations from the parents is still converting to lack of education for their children, so poverty continues along with other social ills in the family. It is very sad since we have free education but this isn't enough on it's own, if a child is living in a stressful family environment or a poor inner city area its very difficult for that child to come out of. There are some good initiatives by charities and local councils which are trying to help in Birmz but much more work needs to be done.

 

[shaz619]

I've heard the same, it's a vicious cycle unfortunately , lack of educations from the parents is still converting to lack of education for their children, so poverty continues along with other social ills in the family. It is very sad since we have free education but this isn't enough on it's own, if a child is living in a stressful family environment or a poor inner city area its very difficult for that child to come out of. There are some good initiatives by charities and local councils which are trying to help in Birmz but much more work needs to be done.

It's tough I totally agree and the're often demonised very swiftly for their ways when no one truly understands them and their issues which means that the help they get is little or of no substance. Which is why I've been contemplating pursuing a long term career in such an area but it's a big responsibility and I've that doubt at the back of me head and fear of not being perfect for the challenge because that's what is required, you need to know literally everything not only on an academic level but also from a psychological point of view as well can't afford any lapses; I guess would be able to relate to such folk which would help. Do you know of folk in our city who have gone into state schools to teach, wonder how they found it; most me friends pursued careers beyond education sector

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] what do you make of all this nonsense, forgive me but my instincts suggest you tend to go a bit silent when faced with such intriguing topics of discussion besides the ones where we all get to throw Jeremy Corbyn into the River Thames

If BAe doesn't sell to the Saudis they will attack the Yemenis with weapons brought from the Yanks, French or Russians. Might as well safeguard British jobs.

 

[shaz619]

If BAe doesn't sell to the Saudis they will attack the Yemenis with weapons brought from the Yanks, French or Russians. Might as well safeguard British jobs.

The Yanks, French and Russains don't have the best engineers the Saudis would have to ensure they get a 30 day money back guarantee But, I see where you are coming from but we just spend too much on defence.

We have more then enough equipment to ensure our own safety and instead of investing in BAE and other Aerospace companies to create jobs, boost our economy and military supremacy in general it would be better to make cuts to defence and invest in the NHS and Teaching/Education sector to safeguard British Jobs and actually influence the future of our country positively. Besides, we are disobeying UK export law and international humanitarian laws as it is so the governments choices are not exactly ethical either.

 

[Robert]

The Yanks, French and Russains don't have the best engineers the Saudis would have to ensure they get a 30 day money back guarantee But, I see where you are coming from but we just spend too much on defence.

We have more then enough equipment to ensure our own safety and instead of investing in BAE and other Aerospace companies to create jobs, boost our economy and military supremacy in general it would be better to make cuts to defence and invest in the NHS and Teaching/Education sector to safeguard British Jobs and actually influence the future of our country positively. Besides, we are disobeying UK export law and international humanitarian laws as it is so the governments choices are not exactly ethical either.

Seriously? Defencespending is about 2% of GDP, and dropping for years. We spend the bare minimum for a NATO state, and I think a lot of that is made up in pensions. The 2010 Defence Review removed a load of ships, planes and a third of the Army.

 

[shaz619]

Seriously? Defencespending is about 2% of GDP, and dropping for years. We spend the bare minimum for a NATO state, and I think a lot of that is made up in pensions. The 2010 Defence Review removed a load of ships, planes and a third of the Army.

It's WAY TOOO MUCH in my eyes when that money could be utilised better. Yeah they did and some high profile aircraft being retired as well but they could always improve

 

[JaDed]

If BAe doesn't sell to the Saudis they will attack the Yemenis with weapons brought from the Yanks, French or Russians. Might as well safeguard British jobs.

Yes its business when White countries do it ,war crimes when Asian countries do it.

 

[KingKhanWC]

If BAe doesn't sell to the Saudis they will attack the Yemenis with weapons brought from the Yanks, French or Russians. Might as well safeguard British jobs.

If this is the case, the government shouldn't harp on about human rights, they should outright state they don't care when it comes to business.

However im surprised you have said this Robert.

 

[Robert]

It's WAY TOOO MUCH in my eyes when that money could be utilised better. Yeah they did and some high profile aircraft being retired as well but they could always improve

Well, what sort of military would you leave us with [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]? 2% is already dwarfed by the NHS, welfare and pensions spending.

 

[Robert]

If this is the case, the government shouldn't harp on about human rights, they should outright state they don't care when it comes to business.

However im surprised you have said this Robert.

By having trade deals with such regimes we can exert diplomatic persuasion.

 

[Swanny]

UK is going to do what the US wants it to do especially now after Brexit. UK had a good thing going in the EU. EU could actually act as a moral counter to the US influence. But after Brexit EU would look to punish the UK & UK is now has to suck it up to the US.

Also Trump has adopted a pro Saudi & Israeli & anti Iranian stance. He is in favour of selling arms to the Saudis.

 

[shaz619]

Well, what sort of military would you leave us with [MENTION=46929]shaz619[/MENTION]? 2% is already dwarfed by the NHS, welfare and pensions spending.

Our military supremacy has been ensured and doesn't need any more investment, we have all the tools but the skill as well; honestly RAF pilots could probably defeat any airforce in the world besides PAF with F-16's if it came to it. Yet we have that bloody Eurofighter for example which is overqualified to do majority of the jobs it is required to do, do you know how much that thing costs? and it's functionality? we are prepared well enough if anyone decides to invade Britain not that is is remotely likely when we're the ones poking our noses in the business of others. Also, Militarization is not entirely protection or freedom! It is Fear we are holding a gun to every head on earth and calling it security

How about we give our teachers better pay and a manageable workload which is split between other skilled teachers who have received world class training so they don't run off to places like the US, France or Russia you don't like those countries either, this is a better option then the said countries being the major suppliers of C grade weapons to the saudis which probably won't even work and the same can be applied to ensuring the longevity of the NHS which is our pride and honour.

Sale of weapons will not ensure the prowess of Britania in the long run in terms of our economy or quality of living in general but BRAIN POWER will! it's all about the MIND and the FORCE!

 

[Robert]

Our military supremacy has been ensured and doesn't need any more investment, we have all the tools but the skill as well; honestly RAF pilots could probably defeat any airforce in the world besides PAF with F-16's if it came to it. Yet we have that bloody Eurofighter for example which is overqualified to do majority of the jobs it is required to do, do you know how much that thing costs? and it's functionality?

You have to keep maintaining stuff when it goes out of service and training people though.

112 x Typhoons
90 x Tornado GR4, due to retire in 2017

This is an all-time low for the RAF in terms of aircraft numbers, though I agree that pilot for pilot the RAF are a match for anyone except perhaps the Israelis. The Eurofighter is good now compared to most aircraft except the F-22 but in twenty years will be obsolete.

138 x F-35B will be ordered to replace the outgoing Tornados and Harriers, for the RAF and RN.

About a dozen AEW aircraft to be bought to replaced all those retired in 2010.

 

[KingKhanWC]

By having trade deals with such regimes we can exert diplomatic persuasion.

Persuasion of which kind Robert? All I can see it's to persuade them to be in line with western foreign policy in the region not to persuade them to stop killing innocent people. Let's not even go into the decades of human rights abuses and the fact the country is a dictatorship.

 

[shaykh]

I can't stand the hypocrisy either ...condemning human rights abuses whilst contributing directly to them is what is galling ...

That said what Robert is saying makes sense ...these deals with terrible regimes are what keeps the economy ticking ...

It's easy for those who aren't in power to take the moral high ground ...

Those in power have to be pragmatic ...anyone thinking the Greens or Cornyn would refuse to trade with the Saudis are living in cloud cuckoo land ...

I'd just prefer sincerity which is self interest or state interest trumps human rights ...

 

[shaz619]

Yeah it's a lot easier to sit on your backside and eat popcorn while you watch the news in awe of how british exports contribute to genocides we apologise for taking the moral high ground and not accepting how these short cuts boost our economy at the expense of murder

 

[KingKhanWC]

I can't stand the hypocrisy either ...condemning human rights abuses whilst contributing directly to them is what is galling ...

That said what Robert is saying makes sense ...these deals with terrible regimes are what keeps the economy ticking ...

It's easy for those who aren't in power to take the moral high ground ...

Those in power have to be pragmatic ...anyone thinking the Greens or Cornyn would refuse to trade with the Saudis are living in cloud cuckoo land ...
I'd just prefer sincerity which is self interest or state interest trumps human rights ...

You cannot know this for sure. Corbyn has said many times he will suspend arms deals with Saudi if they continue to indiscriminately bomb Yemen. He is very anti-war so there is no reason he can't change such a policy, it will hardly destroy the economy.

 

[shaykh]

You cannot know this for sure. Corbyn has said many times he will suspend arms deals with Saudi if they continue to indiscriminately bomb Yemen. He is very anti-war so there is no reason he can't change such a policy, it will hardly destroy the economy.

You overstate the power that heads of state have...they don't answer to their electorate...they cater to corporate interests...

I'm stating it's easy for Corbyn to take such stances when he's standing on the outside...this happens everywhere...when the pressure of power sets in then difficult decisions have to be made...and frankly human rights never trumps self interest...

In 2013, BAE Systems made a GDP contribution of £7.9 billion to the UK economy, contributing to 122,700 FTE jobs, with a labor productivity more than twice that of the UK average

Considering the Middle East is the main market...by refusing to trade with these nations...damage to the economy, BAE shareholders and British jobs is the possible result...

 

[shaykh]

A few stats:

£35bn - Annual turnover of UK defence industry.
£7.2bn - Value of UK defence exports in 2009.
2nd - UK's position in the world as a defence exporter, behind the US.
55,000 - Number of UK jobs sustained by defence exports.
300,000 - Number of people employed by the defence industry overall in the UK.
10pc - Proportion of UK manufacturing made up by defence.
9,000 - Number of defence companies in the UK, including small businesses.
40,000 - Number of employees BAE Systems has in the UK.
Biggest UK-based suppliers to the Ministry of Defence - BAE Systems, Babcock, Qinetiq , Rolls-Royce

Additional stats...

2/3 of British weapons are sold to the Middle East...
Britain sells arms to 39 'unfree' countries...

Rather than exerting influence on the Middle East with arms deals its the Gulf nations who exert influence with their purchasing power...

39

 

[KingKhanWC]

You overstate the power that heads of state have...they don't answer to their electorate...they cater to corporate interests...

I'm stating it's easy for Corbyn to take such stances when he's standing on the outside...this happens everywhere...when the pressure of power sets in then difficult decisions have to be made...and frankly human rights never trumps self interest...

It is difficult to change deals which have been done by a previous government but just like Canada, if not all deals can be stopped, many can be put on hold or rejected by the new incoming leader. Corbyn might not stop all deals with Saudi's but im sure he will do more than any recent prime minister.

Considering the Middle East is the main market...by refusing to trade with these nations...damage to the economy, BAE shareholders and British jobs is the possible result...

Although this was 2013, I get your point but BAE systems sells to numerous countries, of course any change of deals will hurt the economy but even a threat of suspension to arm Saudi can make a difference. This type of debate is futile really, as its common knowledge Saudi is a client state of the west, it's Britain having a separate policy at all.

 

[shaykh]

It is difficult to change deals which have been done by a previous government but just like Canada, if not all deals can be stopped, many can be put on hold or rejected by the new incoming leader. Corbyn might not stop all deals with Saudi's but im sure he will do more than any recent prime minister.





Although this was 2013, I get your point but BAE systems sells to numerous countries, of course any change of deals will hurt the economy but even a threat of suspension to arm Saudi can make a difference. This type of debate is futile really, as its common knowledge Saudi is a client state of the west, it's Britain having a separate policy at all.

I honestly don't get where this 'client' stuff comes from...what is this common knowledge?...this isn't the formation of the Saudi regime anymore...Ibn Saud no longer leads...

The Saudis have bought the British...so much so that Britain is dependent on Saudi not the other way round...they pretty much have been since the oil embargo where Saudi showed just how powerful they are...

This is an edited extract from Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam

by Mark Curtis

The armies of Egypt and Syria began a surprise attack on Israel on 6 October 1973, crossing the ceasefire lines in the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had captured during the Six-Day War in 1967. Soon after the attack, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by the Gulf states, announced a rise in the price of oil and a total oil embargo against the US for its support of Israel. After further cuts in oil production, the price soared, more than quadrupling compared to early 1973, creating an international crisis and raising panic in Western countries.

Britain’s ambassador in Jeddah, Hooky Walker, wrote that the 1973 oil price rises represented ‘perhaps the most rapid shift in economic power that the world has ever seen’; the Foreign Office acknowledged that the crisis had propelled Saudi Arabia ‘to a position of world influence’. Britain, both before and after the crisis, was reliant on the Gulf states for 70 per cent of its oil supplies, 30 per cent of which came from Saudi Arabia. ‘The disappearance of cheap oil’, the Foreign Office’s planning staff wrote in February 1974, ‘has transformed the world in which British foreign policy has to operate.’ Whereas in 1972 industrial countries had a trading surplus of $10 billion, in 1974 they were likely to have a deficit of $48 billion, while the oil producers were likely to have accrued a surplus of $69 billion.

The oil price rise occurred alongside a worldwide rise in commodity prices and, in Britain, an ongoing coal dispute between the Conservative government of Edward Heath and the National Union of Mineworkers, which had reduced coal deliveries to power stations. Britain was plunged into energy shortages and the ‘gravest economic crisis since the Second World War’, the Cabinet was told by the chancellor, Tony Barber, announcing in December 1973 the balance of payments forecast for 1974. In response, Heath announced in parliament that the government would introduce a three-day working week to conserve fuel and electricity, that industry’s access to electricity would be limited to five days per week and that television programming would end at 10.30 p.m.

However, the Saudis, under the pro-Western Faisal, began to seek a lifting of the embargo as soon as possible, encouraged by the US decision in early 1974 to step up arms supplies to the regime, and worked with the US to find a face-saving formula to end the impasse between the Arabs and the West. In fact, the Saudis, and also Sheikh Zayed’s regime in Abu Dhabi, provided additional oil supplies to Britain in late 1973 and early 1974, to ease its energy crisis, despite the official restrictions agreed in OPEC at the time. On 15 November 1973, Edward Heath wrote to King Faisal, emphasising the excellent state of British–Saudi relations, and underscoring his personal friendship with Faisal. ‘During the crisis through which we have been passing and the momentous issues which it has raised for us all, I have much valued Your Majesty’s understanding and appreciation of British policy in the Middle East,’ Heath wrote, in apparent recognition of Saudi oil policy towards Britain.

The Saudis formally lifted the embargo in March 1974. In subsequent OPEC meetings, Saudi oil minister Sheikh Yamani consistently called for low oil prices in support of the Western states. At the September 1975 OPEC meeting, the Saudis resisted calls from the other members for a much greater increase in oil prices than the 10 per cent eventually agreed. The British files are full of praise for the Saudis’ ‘moderating role’ in these meetings, and it is clear that Britain actively worked through them to achieve lower prices – a strategy ‘to press Saudi Arabia to use her great strength to blunt the power of OPEC’, as British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Alan Rothnie, put it.

Flush with oil money, the Saudis stepped up their bankrolling of Islamist organisations and charities around the world. During the 1970s the Saudi-controlled Muslim World League opened a raft of new offices abroad, while its Ministry for Religious Affairs printed and exported millions of Korans free of charge and distributed Wahhabi doctrinal texts among the world’s mosques. The Saudis also instigated a massive building programme that would eventually construct 1,500 mosques worldwide. In Jeddah in 1972, the Saudis added to the international Islamic associations they had founded the previous decade by establishing the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), which sought to federate Islamist youth organisations throughout the world; in the 1980s WAMY would become a discreet channel for public and private Saudi donations to hardline organisations accused of supporting terrorist groups.

At the same time, a quiet revolution was occurring in the British economy, involving the sealing of a profound economic alliance with the Saudis, the consequences of which are still evident. This was begun by Conservative ministers in the dying days of the Heath government, and enthusiastically continued by their Labour counterparts in the new Wilson government of 1974. British ministers bent over backwards to forge closer economic relations with Saudi Arabia by seeking to win contracts to participate in its petrodollar-funded economic expansion; moreover, they went out of their way to offer up Britain as an attractive place to invest Saudi oil money.

These British plans had actually begun before the October oil price rises. In January 1973 the Foreign Office had noted that, with Saudi oil wealth and plans for industrialisation in the Kingdom, there was ‘a golden opportunity for British industry and for British banking if they have the energy and imagination to grasp it’. By the following month, it was working on initiatives ‘to nudge Saudi thinking in the direction of sensible investment abroad of their surplus revenues’, and to persuade them ‘of the facilities that the City of London had to offer.’ The Saudis were clearly being seen as potential saviours for Britain, already undergoing a deep economic crisis.

A stream of high-level meetings in Britain and Saudi Arabia began in early 1973. In February, Crown Prince Fahd, the minister of the interior, visited London to meet Edward Heath to discuss Saudi investment in Britain as well as the ‘broad measure of agreement’ between the two countries on foreign policy. In July, Prince Abdullah, the commander of the Saudi National Guard – and another future king – visited London. Amidst the oil crisis in December 1973, Trade Secretary Peter Walker proposed to the prime minister to make ‘a major effort’ to persuade the Arab oil producers ‘to invest part of their large surpluses over the next five or six years in British industry’. He outlined various options for ‘partnership’, with them entailing greater involvement of British industry in Saudi industrial development, especially in exploring new sources of raw materials or energy. By the end of the year, after visits to Saudi Arabia by the governor of the Bank of England and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, Ambassador Rothnie was noting that Britain and Saudi Arabia ‘had taken the first steps towards the establishment of a new long-term relationship in the linked spheres of development, investment and oil’.

British finance officials were, however, concerned about the possible impact that large Arab investments might have on the international financial system. Even before October 1973, Saudi Arabia had accrued surpluses of $3 billion from oil sales, and the Bank of England’s ‘prime concern was with the volatility of the large reserves which the Arab states would amass from oil revenues’. By October 1974, the Treasury noted that the oil producers had accrued surpluses of $70 billion, of which the Saudis alone accounted for $26 billion, confirming the forecast earlier in the year. The Treasury’s concern was to handle the surpluses in a way so as to ‘not to dislocate international financial mechanisms and aggravate the tendencies towards recession now visible in the world economy.’ A key problem was that the investments were being placed in Western banks at high interest rates, accruing sums for the investors that were out of proportion to the banks’ capital base, threatening to ‘overwhelm’ them, with ‘grave consequences for the entire private financial structure of the West’, the Treasury noted.

The British solution was ‘for a new and reformed system which might serve us in the future as Bretton Woods did in the past’ – referring to the arrangements established in the mid-1940s in which countries pegged their exchange rates to the value of gold, but which collapsed in 1971 following the US’ suspension of the convertibility of dollars to gold. The British now wanted to ensure that the oil producers recycled their surplus petrodollars ‘to reinforce the stability of the system’; at the same time, some of these should ‘come our way’, the Treasury implored.

The British–Saudi meetings continued into late 1974 and 1975. In December 1974, the chancellor, Denis Healey, visited Saudi Arabia to discuss Saudi investment in Britain and the global financial system, and also, as his principal private secretary put it, ‘to establish good personal relationships with the powerful minority who matter in this important country’. In March 1975, Fahd visited London and followed this up with a further visit in October, meeting the queen and various ministers, ‘to inaugurate this happy new era’ between the two countries. The following month, Foreign Secretary James Callaghan paid the first ever visit by a British foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia to build on the ‘tremendous momentum’ of contacts between the two countries and to get more British firms participating in Saudi Arabia’s massive new development projects.

These British visits were exercises in obsequiousness, with Chancellor Healey’s notable in this respect. When Healey met Saudi finance minister, Prince Musa’id, in December 1974, he told the latter that he did not consider the oil-producing countries to have acted immorally in raising oil prices, nor did he consider that the price increase was responsible ‘by any means’ for the difficulties now facing the world. The inflation that the world had experienced in 1973 had ‘nothing to do with the price of oil’, Healey said, adding that it was simply an ‘historical accident’ that the oil price increase had come just when the threat of inflation was being recognised.

By January 1975, the Saudis had invested a massive $9.3 billion in Britain, of which $800 million was in the public sector – a total investment equivalent to around £20 billion today. British nationalised industries’ total borrowing from the oil producers was around $1.4 billion. However, the Treasury noted that ‘because of the sensitivities of the Saudis we have avoided identifying them as the source’ of these loans to Britain. It also stated that the oil producers’ surplus funds were making a major contribution to financing Britain’s current account deficit in 1974 and the first half of 1975. The Saudis were now ‘very substantial holders of sterling’, the second largest holders among the oil producers (after Nigeria). When Harold Wilson met Prince Fahd in London in October 1975, he was briefed by his advisers to tell the future king: ‘Your country now has a major stake in Britain and you will naturally be closely interested in the progress of the British economy.’

Thus, within two years of the October 1973 oil crisis, the Saudis had poured huge quantities of petrodollars into the British economy, taking a sizeable stake in it. The upshot was that Britain was now economically reliant on the Saudi regime and would be in effect tied to aligning its foreign policy to the regime. British planners were perfectly comfortable with, indeed championed, the Saudis’ increasingly influential regional and world role. In November 1974, a Foreign Office brief for Chancellor Healey’s upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia noted the confidence with which Saudi Arabia, flush with petrodollars, was bestriding the world stage, and that it ‘will retain for the foreseeable future a powerful voice in the formulation of Arab policies’. It encouraged Healey to raise the point that ‘Saudi Arabia and Britain have many interests in common, not least in the maintenance of stability in the Arabian Peninsula’. ‘Stability’ of course meant protecting the sub-region from infection by wayward notions of popular, republican or nationalist government. Britain welcomed Saudi Arabia’s pre-eminence in the region, especially after having decided to reduce its own military commitments to the Gulf states a few years earlier.

Both states were bent on maintaining in power the pro-Western feudal sheikhdoms elsewhere in Arabia. This applied firstly in Oman, where the sultan was still fighting nationalist forces in Dhofar province with the aid of British troops and Saudi money; and secondly in North Yemen, created after the British and Saudi-backed covert war and where a pro-Saudi military government now faced a Soviet-backed nationalist regime in neighbouring South Yemen, Britain’s former colony of Aden. British and Saudi officials were especially concerned with South Yemeni backing for the Dhofari rebels and connived throughout 1975 to find ways to counter it. In October that year, James Callaghan and Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud bin Faisal, jointly agreed that the Saudis would finance North Yemen’s arms imports and that the British would arrange ‘private’ counter-insurgency training for the North Yemeni regime.

Yet Britain did not only support Saudi foreign policy in the Middle East. Crown Prince Fahd’s October 1975 visit to Britain came at a time when the Foreign Office was briefing ministers to regard the Saudis ‘as valuable interlocutors’ for ‘exchanging views … on a wide range of world (as distinct from purely Middle Eastern) problems, including East–West relations and the world economic and monetary situation (with particular reference to a new international economic order)’. This was now a global strategic alliance. And British planners could have had no illusions about just who the Saudis were otherwise supporting in their foreign policy. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Saudi Arabia financed, among others, the Palestinian terrorist group headed by Abu Nidal, Islamic militants opposed to Qadafi in Libya, Uganda’s bloodthirsty dictator Idi Amin, Muslim rebels in the Philippines and the brutal Siad Barre regime in Somalia.

The Kingdom’s links with terrorist groups were known to the US by the early 1970s. In May 1974, for example, the US State Department warned Britain not to go ahead with its reported offer to sell Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles to Saudi Arabia, for fear of ‘seepage of this type of weapon into the hands of terrorists’. The US ambassador to Saudi Arabia told his British counterpart that the US had refused to sell similar equipment, the Redeye, for fear of their ending up in the hands of terrorists and being ‘used against civil aircraft or similar targets’.

The British continued to be responsible for the very survival of the Saudi royal family. In 1970, a British army team had trained members of the Saudi National Guard in ‘special duties in connection with the personal safety of HM the King’. This training team stayed throughout the early 1970s, while the Saudi oil minister, Sheikh Yamani, was protected by a team of former SAS security officers; this training followed the events of December 1975, when a group of terrorists led by Carlos the Jackal had taken OPEC oil ministers hostage at their meeting in Vienna.

In May 1973, Britain signed a £250 million deal with Saudi Arabia to train its air force pilots and service its aircraft. By this time, 2,000 British instructors, engineers and administrators were involved in work on various military projects around the country. British military equipment was being sold to a country whose ‘defence’ policy was, as the then British ambassador, Hooky Walker, noted in February 1975, based on ‘Jihad’. A Saudi press statement of the time stated:

The general principles upon which the Kingdom’s defence policy is founded include the doctrine that Jihad (Holy War) is something that will remain in existence until the Day of Judgment within the limits laid down by God (‘Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God loveth not transgressors’, Koran, sura ii) and by the Prophet (‘Whoever fights to raise the high word of God is doing the will of God’). The Kingdom’s defence system is guided by the Shari’a rules of conduct for war that are contained in the Holy Book, the Sunna of the Prophet and the guidelines of the Four Great Caliphs.

This alliance had been formed neither because British planners had any particular love for the House of Saud, nor out of ignorance as to what it was like. In May 1972, just before the deepening of the Anglo–Saudi entente cordiale, outgoing ambassador, Willie Morris, had observed to Alec Douglas-Home, the foreign secretary, that: ‘It is a great tragedy that, with all the world’s needs, Providence should have concentrated so much of a vital resource and so much wealth in the hands of people who need it so little and are so socially irresponsible about the use of it.’ The leading Saudis, Morris added, ‘regard the rest of the world as existing for their convenience’, and they ‘act with unstudied, unconscious indifference to the convenience of others or what others may think of them.’ Morris’ words are revealing in that they describe Whitehall’s closest allies in the region, with whom it had formed a strategic alliance, precisely to oppose more benign forces elsewhere. In short, the British knew exactly with whom they were dealing as the Saudis promoted any cause inside the Kingdom or overseas in the name of Wahhabi extremism and defence of the House of Saud.

The lengths to which British officials went to nurture the relationship were often extraordinary. In October 1975, for example, a Foreign Office brief for the queen in advance of Prince Fahd’s visit to Britain included a section called ‘topics to be avoided’. It noted two – the Arab–Israel issue and ‘recent reports of bribery and corruption in Saudi Arabia’. The British government also provided a ‘large Jaguar and an attractively leggy blonde’ for Mohammed al-Fawzan, the director of foreign broadcasting in the Saudi Ministry of Information, for his visit to London in September 1973. ‘Mohammed seemed in a thoroughly anglophile mood’ with these provisions, the Foreign Office commented.

One senior Saudi with whom Britain also began developing relations was Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz, an Oxford-educated vice minister of defence who, in 1977, succeeded Kamal Adham as head of the Saudi foreign intelligence service, the General Intelligence Directorate. Turki would reportedly forge close ties to MI6 and the CIA and even offer jobs to retired intelligence officers to be his eyes and ears in London or Washington. Soon after his appointment, in either 1978 or 1979, Turki is believed to have first met Osama Bin Laden, then a student at the University of Jeddah who had begun to associate with Islamic radicals. It is alleged that Turki suggested to Bin Laden that he use his money to aid the Afghan resistance against the Soviets following the latter’s invasion in December 1979.

 

[KingKhanWC]

^ I'm aware of history. A client state doesn't necessarily have to agree with everything when it comes to their riches. You never hear of Britain demanding elections in a dictatorship for obvious reasons. Any election would vote out the installed family and replace it with a ruler who is no longer a puppet. This is all you need to know.

 

[shaykh]

^ I'm aware of history. A client state doesn't necessarily have to agree with everything when it comes to their riches. You never hear of Britain demanding elections in a dictatorship for obvious reasons. Any election would vote out the installed family and replace it with a ruler who is no longer a puppet. This is all you need to know.

How are you defining client?...cos most of the time that term is used it refers to a subordinate relationship...that is certainly not what the relationship is between Britain or Saudi Arabia...

 

[KingKhanWC]

How are you defining client?...cos most of the time that term is used it refers to a subordinate relationship...that is certainly not what the relationship is between Britain or Saudi Arabia...

It's not as subordinate as it used to be in the good old days when the Brits installed the Al-Saud family, it has evolved over time. The Kingdom has free voice to further it's personal interests and can use various nations as a bargaining chip which has happened many times. But the foundation of it's illegitimate existence continues to this day, the policies esp in the region have to in line with the policies and interests of the western nations in the region. E.g Saudi can and will never criticise Israel, instead it must help Israel, such as allowing airspace for the jets. This is just one example but it's policies in the region is what is most important, all others areas are up for debate and even disagreement.

 

[Robert]

Persuasion of which kind Robert? All I can see it's to persuade them to be in line with western foreign policy in the region not to persuade them to stop killing innocent people. Let's not even go into the decades of human rights abuses and the fact the country is a dictatorship.

In efect the Saudis hired Uncle Sam and John Bull to push Saddam out of Kuwait for them, so I don't see that they need persuading.

Yes, I was referring to the human rights abuses.

 

[Robert]

^ I'm aware of history. A client state doesn't necessarily have to agree with everything when it comes to their riches. You never hear of Britain demanding elections in a dictatorship for obvious reasons. Any election would vote out the installed family and replace it with a ruler who is no longer a puppet. This is all you need to know.

Afghanistan? Iraq? A lot of British soldiers died to give those people the right to vote.

 

[shaz619]

You have to keep maintaining stuff when it goes out of service and training people though.

112 x Typhoons
90 x Tornado GR4, due to retire in 2017

This is an all-time low for the RAF in terms of aircraft numbers, though I agree that pilot for pilot the RAF are a match for anyone except perhaps the Israelis. The Eurofighter is good now compared to most aircraft except the F-22 but in twenty years will be obsolete.

138 x F-35B will be ordered to replace the outgoing Tornados and Harriers, for the RAF and RN.

About a dozen AEW aircraft to be bought to replaced all those retired in 2010.

Am not surprised they will be retired, after all they are a hindrance. Yeah, it's such an advanced fighter and will be kept on longer in service then originally expected. But development when it comes to UAV's and missiles continues, can't they make money without having blood on their hands? aerospace engineers are not limited to making killing machines; they are capable of innovation beyond what you could possibly imagine and their skills can be utilized in the civilian market (among others) e.g the worlds most efficient commercial airliner for example, it would receive orders in their bucket loads internationally. Besides have you thought about the implications of selling our most advanced equipment to other nations? it's something to consider since we are dealing with hypothetical scenario's involving Britain being invaded and all

 

[shaz619]

Afghanistan? Iraq? A lot of British soldiers died to give those people the right to vote.

They died for nothing besides trying to provide for their family's, a solider is like a dog for the government. Many who join the forces are brainwashed with this whole nationalism concept and a false sense of a greater good they're trying to achieve when the reality is they probably joined when their personal circumstances were exploited and by the end of their run are left an absolute mess on a psychological level and never sleep peacefully again.

 

[shaz619]

Although admittedly, the soldiers which come from privileged backgrounds are barbarians and genuinely have delusions of grandeur.

 

[Markhor]

I honestly don't get where this 'client' stuff comes from...what is this common knowledge?...this isn't the formation of the Saudi regime anymore...Ibn Saud no longer leads...

The Saudis have bought the British...so much so that Britain is dependent on Saudi not the other way round...they pretty much have been since the oil embargo where Saudi showed just how powerful they are...

Extraordinary article.

The irony of the 3 day week was that productivity went up ! However that OPEC embargo was disasterous for the US and UK. Here inflation shot through the roof rising to 27% in August 1975.

There were of course many reasons why the Carter and Callaghan governments fell, but the inflation crisis was a major factor - though to be fair Callaghan had got it under control by the time he left office.

I wonder had that embargo been avoided whether both the US and UK could've avoided the agony of the 1980s under Reagan and Thatcher, averting the 30 year domination of neoliberal economics.

 

[Robert]

They died for nothing besides trying to provide for their family's, a solider is like a dog for the government. Many who join the forces are brainwashed with this whole nationalism concept and a false sense of a greater good they're trying to achieve when the reality is they probably joined when their personal circumstances were exploited and by the end of their run are left an absolute mess on a psychological level and never sleep peacefully again.

I have known many soldiers. You say brainwashed dogs. I say splendid individuals who believe in a higher and more noble calling - who are prepared to lay down their lives to make the world better for those who come after.

 

[shaz619]

I have known many soldiers. You say brainwashed dogs. I say splendid individuals who believe in a higher and more noble calling - who are prepared to lay down their lives to make the world better for those who come after.

I didn't call them that, I said they are dogs for the government who brainwash them. Yes I know soldiers to, unfortunately they would disagree with your assessment; that's how they may have felt at the start because they were led to believe a false truth but not by the end. Although it was different during the World Wars when the end goal was a noble one but even for them, they were never the same again.

 

[Robert]

I didn't call them that, I said they are dogs for the government who brainwash them. Yes I know soldiers to, unfortunately they would disagree with your assessment; that's how they may have felt at the start because they were led to believe a false truth but not by the end. Although it was different during the World Wars when the end goal was a noble one but even for them, they were never the same again.

Perhaps it depends whom you ask. My ex-Forces friends tend to be Officers and senior NCOs though I knew a few Private Soldiers, Airmen and Able Seamen too. None would change anything about their service. What you call false truth, I call an ideal, no more false or true than religion or philosophy.

Regarding your point about mental (and physical) health it is a national shame that the Government does not look after its wounded sons who are forced to rely on charities.

 

[shaz619]

Perhaps it depends whom you ask. My ex-Forces friends tend to be Officers and senior NCOs though I knew a few Private Soldiers, Airmen and Able Seamen too. None would change anything about their service. What you call false truth, I call an ideal, no more false or true than religion or philosophy.

Regarding your point about mental (and physical) health it is a national shame that the Government does not look after its wounded sons who are forced to rely on charities.

Even if it involves pure evil? otherwise I agree with everything else you have said, I know that folk who join the RAF have available to them a decent system in place for Benefits, Pension, Annual Allowances and Scheme Pays; was contemplating joining them at one point. Am not sure of the extent of help available in terms of the physical but when it comes to mental the government does little across the board. In 2014, 6,122 suicides were registered in the UK. This corresponds to a suicide rate of 10.8 per 100,000 people (16.8 per 100,000 for men and 5.2 per 100,000 for women). The highest suicide rate in the UK in 2014 was for men aged 45-49 at 26.5 per 100,000.

 

[Robert]

Depends how you define pure evil. Was not Saddam pure evil? He nerve-gassed the Kurds, made war on two neighbours and threw dissenters into industrial shredders. I believe that Blair helped invade Iraq with the best of intentions. He thought he was a liberator.

But I also think he was promoted too fast. Had he spent time as Foreign Sec under Prime Minister John Smith, he would have been more critical with regard to intel. Remember Theresa May's delay on the Hinkley Point programme, considering the possibility of Chinese hackers. Blair would also have become more aware of the multiplicity of different factions in Iraq that Saddam was keeping bottled up. He opened Pandora's Box.

It is not the business of HM Armed Forces to criticise Government. It is their job to serve where Parliament sends them. If they don't like that Parliament, they can vote them out, as they did to Churchill in 1945.

 

[shaz619]

Depends how you define pure evil. Was not Saddam pure evil? He nerve-gassed the Kurds, made war on two neighbours and threw dissenters into industrial shredders. I believe that Blair helped invade Iraq with the best of intentions. He thought he was a liberator.

But I also think he was promoted too fast. Had he spent time as Foreign Sec under Prime Minister John Smith, he would have been more critical with regard to intel. Remember Theresa May's delay on the Hinkley Point programme, considering the possibility of Chinese hackers. Blair would also have become more aware of the multiplicity of different factions in Iraq that Saddam was keeping bottled up. He opened Pandora's Box.

It is not the business of HM Armed Forces to criticise Government. It is their job to serve where Parliament sends them. If they don't like that Parliament, they can vote them out, as they did to Churchill in 1945.

Our scientific and governing power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

 

[shaz619]

[MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] check out the OP, more poignant given the recent massacre of children by saudi

 

[Abdullah719]

Britain to resume sale of arms to Saudi Arabia despite Yemen fears

Britain is to resume the sales of arms to Saudi Arabia that could be used in the Yemeni conflict just over a year after the court of appeal ruled them unlawful because ministers had not properly assessed the risk of civilian casualties.

In a written statement, the trade secretary, Liz Truss, said sales would restart after an official review concluded there had been only “isolated incidents” of airstrikes in Yemen that breached humanitarian law.

Truss said that the undertaking given by the government after the court defeat last June “falls away”. The government had agreed not to grant any new licences to export arms or military equipment to Saudi Arabia for possible use in Yemen.

As a result, Truss said, “the government will now begin the process of clearing the backlog of licence applications for Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners that has built up since 20 June last year”.

Arms trade campaigners said the decision was “disgraceful and morally bankrupt” and they were considering a legal challenge.

Andrew Smith, of Campaign Against Arms Trade, said: “The Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and the government itself admits that UK-made arms have played a central role on the bombing. We will be exploring all options available to challenge it.”

Britain is a major supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia. The leading arms maker, BAE Systems, sold £15bn-worth of arms to the Gulf kingdom over the last five years, principally supplying and maintaining Tornado and Typhoon aircraft used in bombing missions.

Thousands of civilians have been killed since the civil war in Yemen began in March 2015 with indiscriminate bombing by a Saudi-led coalition that is supplied by western arms makers. The kingdom’s air force is accused of being responsible for many of the 12,600 deaths in targeted attacks.

Labour accused the government of mixed messaging, contrasting the decision with Monday’s announcement by the Foreign Office of sanctions against human rights abusers, including 20 Saudi nationals involved with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Emily Thornberry, the shadow trade secretary, said that it undermined “the government’s claim to be human rights defenders”. She added: “Britain should be working flat out to bring this terrible war to an end, not selling the arms that continue to fuel it.”

Saudi involvement in Yemen’s civil war has dropped dramatically in recent months, as Riyadh seeks to withdraw from a war that has earned it international criticism. But the country remains engaged in the conflict along with its coalition partners, despite the coronavirus pandemic, at a reduced level.

According to the Save the Children and the Civilian Impact Monitoring Project, which tracks the impact of airstrikes in Yemen, 26 children were killed and 18 injured in a single incident on 15 February this year when airstrikes hit a civilian gathering at a fighter jet crash site in Al Hayjah area in Al Maslub district.

The official review sought to examine historical examples of airstrikes from Saudi Arabia using British-licensed equipment that may have breached humanitarian law, and in particular whether there were trends in incidents where there were civilian casualties.

“This analysis has not revealed any such patterns, trends or systemic weaknesses,” Truss told MPs in the statement. “The conclusion is that these are isolated incidents,” which the minister said justified restarting exports.

A succession of leading ministers, including Boris Johnson when he was foreign secretary, have been criticised for signing off export licences to Saudi Arabia for hardware that could be used in Yemen at a time when civilians were being killed in bombing.

Trust also said that the Department for International Trade would no longer appeal to the supreme court against last year’s court of appealing ruling “in light of the revised methodology which I have just described” – because the conclusion of the review meant it was no longer necessary.

A government spokesperson added: “The government takes its export responsibilities seriously and assesses all export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria. We will not issue any export licences where to do so would be inconsistent with these criteria.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-of-arms-to-saudi-arabia-despite-yemen-fears