Arms trade news

Campaign Against the Arms Trade was established 50 years ago

January 2025

CAAT was formed 50 years ago, (the same year our local Amnesty group was formed). Their overriding vision is “A just, peaceful and sustainable world built on foundations of equity and solidarity“. Their latest News Letter is published, issue 271, and amongst other things contains a review of events with an arms perspective over the half century since they were formed. We feature their work from time to time on this site because arms are a key element in conflicts around the world. Looking at wars in Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza and other theatres, we see the destruction weapons cause to communities, women, children and other non-combatants. Buildings are destroyed and people are killed or injured by the weapons used. The UK is a major supplier of weapons and claims, somewhat dubiously, to have a ‘very robust regime’ of controls, while at the same time granting ‘open’ licences enabling arms dealers to circumvent them. Human rights are greatly damaged by the arms industry.

The review reminds us of the war in Nigeria and it is probable that younger readers may not be aware of the war there which focused on Biafra. It took place between 1976-70 and was around the desire by the region of Biafra to form its own state. Britain had been the colonial power and was a major arms supplier to the country. The effects were terrible and a blockade led to the death of millions of Biafrans. Between half a million and 2 million Biafrans died in the conflict. It was one of the first wars to be televised and images of the suffering were seen around the world. Apparently, the malnutrition disease Kwashiorkor, was called the ‘Harold Wilson syndrome’ after the then UK prime minister. Images of children with distended bellies, which is a symptom, shocked the world.

A lot has changed over the 50 years: or has it? The fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of China, the ‘global war on terror’ following the attack on the Twin Towers in New York are just some of the key events. Britain, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, has steadily slid down the ranks of arms sellers and now lies approximately seventh. However, taking into account components and military services not counted by SIPRI, the nation is around fourth and on a par with Russia. CAAT do not directly draw attention to the significant role of the City of London which facilitates the movement of money around the world.

Political factors

What has remained constant over the years is the role of the arms industry and its close links to government of all stripes. Arms sales are important for several reasons. Firstly because of the jobs it creates. CAAT for example has a feature on the county of Lancashire in England where BAE Systems is based at two sites in Warton and Samlesbury. The company has developed close links with Lancaster University. Secondly, exports and arms are one of the few areas which show a trade surplus.

The industry has a huge lobbying operation and previous CAAT newsletters have highlighted the revolving door – or open plan office as they are now terming it – through which a large number of senior military personnel, civil servants and some politicians pass through on their way to lucrative directorships or consultancies with the arms companies. This is an invitation to corruption. The arguments over arms supplies to Israel has revealed government ministers reluctant to call a spade a spade. Frightened of upsetting both the industry and the Americans, they continue to allow components for the F-35 despite its use to cause devastation to large parts of Gaza. The industry enjoys too much power and the interests, lives and rights of those who suffer from its wares are barely considered.

Current phase of the conflict a year old and little sign of an end

October 2024

There has been an exchange of letters in the Salisbury Journal concerning the conflict in the Middle East. Two letters have focused on the issue of Britain continuing to supply arms to Israel. Although a limited embargo is in place, we still for example supply components for the F35. These aircraft are being used to deadly effect in both Gaza and Lebanon. Over 42,000 are dead in Gaza and more than 2,000 in Lebanon.

The word ‘genocide’ has been used to describe Israel’s action in Gaza and South Africa has launched an action in the International Criminal Court. The allegations make grim reading. There are huge numbers of forced evacuations. A significant part of the population is being forcibly moved. The death toll, particularly among women and children, is rising. Medical aid is failing to reach the population. Tens of thousands are living in make-shift accommodation (the link provides a more detailed picture). In the past day or two, evidence has been put forward to the effect that the starvation of those remaining in north Gaza might be an act of deliberate policy. This is said to be the ‘Generals’ Plan’.

Are these actions genocidal? The problem for the ICJ will be the question of intent. Is the destruction however terrible, a justifiable answer to the atrocious actions of Hamas most particularly on October 7th last year? Is Israel justified in going after the terrorist organisations who continually lob salvos of rockets into their territory? Or is it way over the top and disproportionate? One of the problems the Israelis have made for themselves is not allowing foreign journalists or observers into the area. Last month, the offices of al Jazeera were closed down and done so aggressively. Israel justifies the destruction of buildings, including schools and hospitals. It claims these buildings are used by Hamas to fire rockets into Israel and to prepare for terrorist activities. It claims that the deaths are because Hamas are using the population as ‘human shields’. Very little evidence is provided to justify these claims. One might expect that a year into this conflict, we would see evidence of these alleged activities, evidence that outside observers could verify. Entire buildings have been demolished with massive 2000 pound ‘dumb’ bombs because it is alleged Hamas operatives are present within them.

One of the writers to the Salisbury Journal asserts that the Hamas Covenant of 1988 calls for the obliteration of Israel. A subsequent charter in 2017 distinguishes between Jews and Zionists confining its more violent actions towards the latter. He failed to mention the statement by the Israeli Minister Amichae Eliyahu suggesting a nuclear bomb be dropped on Gaza. Bezalel Smotrich suggested recently that it would be ‘justified and moral’ to starve the population of Gaza. Both have been disavowed. Israeli minister Ben Gvir has said that his right to move around the West bank is superior to freedom of movement for Palestinians. The point being that aggressive and bloodthirsty statements have been made by both parties.

It is largely forgotten that Netanyahu supported Hamas for a period of several years as a means to weaken the PLO. And this is close to the heart of the problem: the desire for a Palestinian state and Israel’s refusal to countenance this. The desire for a greater Israel and the violent actions by the Israelis (misleadingly called settlers) on the West bank are a key element in the conflict. Another misunderstanding is to claim that the violent actions of October 7th were the start of the current hostilities. The roots go back to 1948 nakba at least and elements can be traced back to the Balfour Agreement and further back still. October 7th is but the latest manifestation of long term hatreds.

What makes the conflict hard to unpick is that in effect there are two wars going on. Firstly, that between Israel and Palestine and the former’s resolute stance not to allow a two state solution. Secondly, Iran’s role. This has history going back to the Shah. They have supported Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis in Yemen as proxies to attack Israel. But the seat of their aggression is again the Palestinian state and a belief that Israel has usurped Arab lands.

A key feature is the imbalance of power. Israel, with a largely unquestioning US support, is the regional superpower. It can project its power over the region. It can do this both militarily and with superior intelligence. This intelligence was seen with the spate of assassinations of Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon recently. None of the other states can match this. The US is sending manpower and more equipment this week. This makes it unwilling to compromise its position simply because it doesn’t need to. The world is waiting for Israel to respond to the rocket attacks from Iran of a few weeks ago. Israel has the capacity to inflict real damage on Iran’s military infrastructure. Iran by contrast, cannot do this. Despite the huge number of missiles hurled at Israel, the damage was minimal.

One major shift is the international attitude towards Israel. The world was shocked by the horrific attack on October 7th. The ensuing destruction of huge chunks of Gaza and the appalling death toll and squalor has seen sympathy for Israel drain away. Western media reporting was largely pro Israel arising partly from a fear of being labelled ‘antiSemitic’ for any criticisms. It has become more balanced and robust as time has gone by. Occasionally, commentators have mentioned the apartheid policy in the West bank. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem have all published detailed reports on this and Israel has accused them of being anti-Israel. Reporting is hampered by a lack of access to the conflict zones. Claims and counter claims cannot be independently checked.

Conclusions

Should the UK stop sending arms to Israel? From the purely practical point of view, doing so will make little difference. We are a small supplier anyway and so ceasing supplies will not stop or help resolve the conflict. The political position is rather different. The UK is a member of the Security Council and still an influential force around the world. Other countries like Spain, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy have stopped their supplies. The moral case is rather more compelling. Are we content to see the destruction of a vast swathe of both Gaza and increasingly Lebanon? Are we content to see thousands of children die or receive terrible wounds. Can we stand by and accept the use of starvation as a weapon of war? The answer should be ‘no’. If genocide is pronounced, the UK will be obliged to stop all weapons sales.

The imbalance of power is a major factor in the continuation of this conflict and we are contributing to this. We also help Israel with overflights from Cyprus. Wars have to end sometime. Few have mentioned the economic cost of this conflict bearing mind Israel’s population is around 9.5 million 75% of whom are Jews. How long can they sustain this even allowing for massive US aid?

Yesterday’s killing of Yahya Sinwar (17 October), the leader of Hamas, has led the Americans and others to hope that this is some kind of ‘moment of justice’. They hope this is the opportunity for negotiations to begin. It is unlikely. Netanyahu is holding on in the hope that Donald Trump will win the election. Since the US is powerless to rein in Israel and Hamas and the other terrorist groups ignore them, the possibility of an outside force successfully engineering some kind of peace seems remote. Frequent efforts by Qatar came to nought.

An end

Wars end because exhaustion sets in. Another reason is the parties see no hope of gaining victory. Thirdly, the loss of treasure becomes too great to bear and a kind of armed truce takes place. The public may become tired and the initial euphoria turns to boredom or frustration. Unfortunately, in the case of this conflict, these factors which researchers* have identified in other conflicts, may not apply. As argued above, outside forces most particularly the USA, are the drivers here enabling Israel to continue for a long period. In many respects this is a proxy war both by USA and Iran. Israel’s losses are minimal and containable. But the greatest factor is the abiding hatred that seems to exist between the parties.

Being surrounded by enemies, some of whom are committed to its destruction, has a powerful effect on Israel. Nevertheless, it had agreed peace treaties with several countries such as Jordan and Egypt. The Abraham accords were also a positive step. It can be done. Trump’s ending of rapprochement with Iran was a backward step.

This stage of the conflict will come to some kind of an end, or should we say pause. The answer to the arms question is clear. Britain should suspend deliveries and use its diplomatic power to push for a two state solution. It would give Israel the security it needs and it would weaken the power and influence of the terrorist groups.

*MIT Research

https://salisburyai.com/2024/10/19/the-middle-east-conflict/