In a startling turn of events, court documents have shed light on the UK government’s controversial decision to uphold certain arms export licenses to Israel, despite acknowledging the clear risk of these weapons being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL).
Prioritizing Global Alliances Over Human Rights?
The revelations, which emerged during a high court legal challenge brought forth by Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan), have raised significant questions about the government’s priorities when it comes to balancing global security alliances and human rights concerns.
According to the court documents, the UK government chose not to fully suspend export licenses to Israel, as doing so would undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO and have a “profound impact” on international peace and security. This decision was made despite the government’s own assessment that there was a clear risk of these weapons being used to commit or facilitate serious IHL violations.
The F-35 Carve-Out: Billions at Stake
Of particular concern is the government’s decision to “carve out” licenses related to components for F-35 fighter jets from the suspension. The global F-35 program, to which 20 countries belong, is worth billions annually to the UK arms industry. According to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), 15% of every F-35 produced is made in the UK.
The F-35 carve-out accepts that there is clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL but determines that in the exceptional circumstances outlined by the defence secretary, these exports should nonetheless continue.
– Court documents
A Litmus Test for International Law Commitment
Human rights organizations have been quick to condemn the government’s decision. Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch, which has intervened in the case alongside Oxfam and Amnesty International, called this “the litmus test of your commitment to comply with international law.”
Last week, Human Rights Watch accused Israel of crimes against humanity over forced displacement in Gaza, as the death toll from Israeli airstrikes in the year-long conflict approaches a staggering 44,000.
Prioritising a contractual relationship with the US over the lives of Palestinian civilians is shocking.
– Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch
The Battle Continues in High Court
As the legal challenge continues, the high court has given the government until December 16 to respond to the grounds and provide further evidence. A final decision is expected the week of January 13.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of UK arms exports and the country’s commitment to upholding international humanitarian law. It also raises uncomfortable questions about the prioritization of economic interests and global alliances over the protection of civilian lives in conflict zones.
As the world watches, it remains to be seen whether the UK government will be held accountable for its actions and whether a precedent will be set for greater scrutiny of arms exports to countries accused of serious human rights violations.
