This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/29/the-guardian-view-on-the-gulf-arms-trade-not-a-good-deal-after-all
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on the Gulf arms trade: not a good deal after all | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| For many years Britain sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states in the confident expectation that they would never be used. It seemed a perfect scheme. Britain sold the weapons, making large profits and sustaining its arms industries at a time when the orders that the UK’s own forces were able to place had become too small to keep those industries viable. The Americans and the French did the same. The beauty was that there was virtually no political cost, because the customers essentially treated this expensive kit as toys for their largely decorative armies. They didn’t go to war, except on a couple of occasions when they were brought into western-led coalitions against Iraq. Israel sometimes got hot under the collar when it thought the Saudis were getting items that were too cutting-edge. There were some rows when western equipment was used for internal security, but these were deemed minor problems. | For many years Britain sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states in the confident expectation that they would never be used. It seemed a perfect scheme. Britain sold the weapons, making large profits and sustaining its arms industries at a time when the orders that the UK’s own forces were able to place had become too small to keep those industries viable. The Americans and the French did the same. The beauty was that there was virtually no political cost, because the customers essentially treated this expensive kit as toys for their largely decorative armies. They didn’t go to war, except on a couple of occasions when they were brought into western-led coalitions against Iraq. Israel sometimes got hot under the collar when it thought the Saudis were getting items that were too cutting-edge. There were some rows when western equipment was used for internal security, but these were deemed minor problems. |
| Mainly, there were quarrels over which western country was getting an “unfair” share of the business, and what part corruption played in the deals. But all good things – if this was a good thing – come to an end. This week’s controversy over the British and US roles in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen illustrates that the time when the Gulf arms trade could be conducted without thought of any consequences is over. | Mainly, there were quarrels over which western country was getting an “unfair” share of the business, and what part corruption played in the deals. But all good things – if this was a good thing – come to an end. This week’s controversy over the British and US roles in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen illustrates that the time when the Gulf arms trade could be conducted without thought of any consequences is over. |
| The Saudis and their allies are striking systematically at civilian targets, including schools and hospitals, a UN investigatory panel has concluded. They are doing so with weaponry that the UK has sold them, with ordnance that the UK is replacing, and with the help of, or at least with no obstruction from, the UK’s military personnel attached to their headquarters. It is true that the Houthi side in the Yemen civil war may well be using civilian buildings for military purposes. That is commonplace in such conflicts. It is also true that today’s arms deals come with after-sales service clauses that involve training and advisory responsibilities that are contractual and can’t just be terminated if the supplying country doesn’t like the policies of the government to which it delivered the planes or missiles. Finally, it is also true that there is no strong evidence that Britain or the United States are backing the Saudi Arabian push in Yemen in any full-hearted way. | The Saudis and their allies are striking systematically at civilian targets, including schools and hospitals, a UN investigatory panel has concluded. They are doing so with weaponry that the UK has sold them, with ordnance that the UK is replacing, and with the help of, or at least with no obstruction from, the UK’s military personnel attached to their headquarters. It is true that the Houthi side in the Yemen civil war may well be using civilian buildings for military purposes. That is commonplace in such conflicts. It is also true that today’s arms deals come with after-sales service clauses that involve training and advisory responsibilities that are contractual and can’t just be terminated if the supplying country doesn’t like the policies of the government to which it delivered the planes or missiles. Finally, it is also true that there is no strong evidence that Britain or the United States are backing the Saudi Arabian push in Yemen in any full-hearted way. |
| The indications instead are that both countries think that Yemen is a complicated mess, that Iran’s meddling was not that serious, and that the Gulf states would have been wise to avoid military entanglement. They have probably also concluded that, having nevertheless gone in, the Gulf states are running their campaign in a way that is both brutal and counterproductive. | The indications instead are that both countries think that Yemen is a complicated mess, that Iran’s meddling was not that serious, and that the Gulf states would have been wise to avoid military entanglement. They have probably also concluded that, having nevertheless gone in, the Gulf states are running their campaign in a way that is both brutal and counterproductive. |
| But this doesn’t alter the fact that Britain seems to be stuck with a supporting role in a bad war. The aim should now therefore be to try to make up diplomatically, and through humanitarian aid, to the extent possible, for the damage done by these military arrangements, and to put some pressure on Britain’s “customers” to reconsider their approach. The Obama administration was wrong to let its most recent arms package for Saudi Arabia go through without such an effort. Britain too needs to take stock. | But this doesn’t alter the fact that Britain seems to be stuck with a supporting role in a bad war. The aim should now therefore be to try to make up diplomatically, and through humanitarian aid, to the extent possible, for the damage done by these military arrangements, and to put some pressure on Britain’s “customers” to reconsider their approach. The Obama administration was wrong to let its most recent arms package for Saudi Arabia go through without such an effort. Britain too needs to take stock. |
| Foreign office minister Tobias Ellwood was right to say he took the UN report “extremely seriously” and that he would raise the allegations with the Saudi Arabians “at a very senior level”. But even if the Yemen conflict were to be settled tomorrow, there remains the broader problem of pouring arms into a volatile region that may well become more so as the years go by. Some weapons systems have lead times so long there is no way of knowing who will be in charge when the time comes to hand them over. There should be more distance from the Gulf states, and less dependence on a relationship that was at once both profitable and, although objectionable in many ways, relatively harmless. That is clearly no longer the case. | Foreign office minister Tobias Ellwood was right to say he took the UN report “extremely seriously” and that he would raise the allegations with the Saudi Arabians “at a very senior level”. But even if the Yemen conflict were to be settled tomorrow, there remains the broader problem of pouring arms into a volatile region that may well become more so as the years go by. Some weapons systems have lead times so long there is no way of knowing who will be in charge when the time comes to hand them over. There should be more distance from the Gulf states, and less dependence on a relationship that was at once both profitable and, although objectionable in many ways, relatively harmless. That is clearly no longer the case. |