“Morally Indefensible” British Foreign Policy

In an open letter, Sayeeda Warsi took the bold move of resigning from her position as a minister in Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). She said her decision was a result of the government’s policy on the recent conflict in Gaza, which she calls ‘morally indefensible’. In the world of foreign policy, these two words are often uttered but rarely meant – morality does not appear to have much of a presence in foreign policy decisions. Instead the priority tends to be advancing economic and diplomatic interests. However, in order to create the peaceful world many of us yearn for morality needs to take centre stage.

There are degrees as to what is right and what is wrong. In the complex world of foreign policy, mistakes are inevitable, and arguably excusable. But there are limits to what can be cast off in this way. Complicity in the negation of basic human rights is never acceptable. Neither is giving stamps of approval to countries guilty of brutal oppression. Yet this has happened time and time again in Britain’s recent past. Below are some examples (not mentioned is Britain’s involvement in the illegal Iraq war, which has been reported on extensively elsewhere):

1) In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron visited Saudi Arabia aiming to sell over 100 fighter jets in a deal potentially worth over £6 billion. He went so far as to describe the country as a “very old ally and partner”. Such a stamp of approval is clearly unwarranted. Saudi Arabia punishes rape victims, violently suppresses opposition opinion, and is even listed by the FCO as a ‘Country of Concern’ due to its stance on a number of issues such as torture, women’s rights, access to justice and religious freedom of expression.

The Prime Minister defended military deals with Gulf states, as he launched a major push to equip them with British-made Typhoon fighter jets on a three day visit to the region. [Source: Telegraph]

2) In fact the UK economy gained £12.3 billion in selling arms to 25 of of the 27 countries listed as ‘Countries of Concern’ – countries marked as such due to ongoing human rights violations. In addition to this, officials authorised a British company to export chemicals used in the production of sarin, a nerve agent. The country that received these chemicals was none other than Syria, which was in the middle of a brutal civil war – a war that reportedly saw the use of sarin on citizens.

Government approves thousands of deals with states it condemns for human rights abuses [Source: Independent]

3) The UK also has continuously sold arms to Israel, despite clear evidence that the Israeli army cannot be trusted to respect human rights during its incursions. Following previous invasions of Gaza, the UN commissioned a report into how the war was conducted. This 2009 report – the Goldstone Report – stated that “the conduct of the Israeli armed forces constitute grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention in respect of wilful killings and wilfully causing great suffering to protected persons and as such give rise to individual criminal responsibility”. One might think this would be a reason to exercise caution. Instead, the UK went the other way and licensed the sale of £8 billion of arms to Israel. The 2014 conflict (‘Operation Protective Edge’) has seen almost 2,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli fire and over 70% of which have been civilians. This includes four children killed whilst playing on a beach and the bombardment of several UN schools. These atrocities have finally forced the UK government to review its supply of arms to Israel, however senior political figures including David Cameron have refused to explicitly condemn Israel’s actions. Instead they have resorted to much weaker rhetoric, such as expressing “concerns about the heavy toll of civilian casualties” and calling on Israel to “exercise restraint”, whilst supporting Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’.

A general view of a Merkava tanks near the Israeli border with the Gaza Strip, 11 August 2014.
[Source: Abir Sultan—EPA]

4) Earlier in his tenure, David Cameron visited the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people. China invaded Tibet in 1950 and forced almost 100,000 to flee, including the Dalai Lama. Following Cameron’s visit, China expressed dismay with a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry saying the meeting had undermined UK-China relations and said that they needed to be repaired quickly. Rather than defend the Dalai Lama, a spokesman for Cameron said, “Our position on Tibet is long-standing and clear: we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China.” Despite China’s continued occupation of Tibet, which has recently involved shooting at peaceful protesters, the UK’s top politicians refuse to condemn the way in which Tibetans have been treated.

Pro-Tibetan demonstrators protest against Chinese-ruled Tibet in front of a Los Angeles hotel following the arrival of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping in California on Feb. 16, 2012. [Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images]

Why is it wrong for the UK government to act in this way?

In each case cited above the UK gained from acting in the way it did, either economically or politically. Selling arms to brutal regimes allowed the UK to gain billions in revenue. Refusing to condemn allies such as Israel ensured long-standing diplomatic ties were maintained. In each case the government had to weigh up the moral implications of its actions with the economic and diplomatic consequences, and it came out ignoring the former and favouring the latter two. Acting in this way ensures greater prosperity for British citizens, who benefit from a stronger economy and from the additional tax revenues collected from the resultant trades.

However, these actions are morally indefensible for at least two reasons. Firstly, whilst these actions may boost the British economy, they promote the infliction of serious harm overseas. A Syrian government that has the ability to make sarin, can then use sarin on its people. An Israeli government in possession of sophisticated British weaponry and an unsophisticated military has an increased ability to kill and maim innocent Palestinians. These are grave injustices – innocent people tortured, critically wounded or even killed – that the UK should not be complicit in.

Secondly, governments often place economic and political embargoes on states they deem to be morally corrupt. By not doing this to countries guilty of severe wrongdoing (in some cases actively seeking arms and other trades with them), the UK makes a statement that it tolerates their behaviour, that it tolerates the brutal hardship suffered by the victims. Such a statement is clearly at odds with what is just. Currently the UK has placed 16 countries under arms embargoes, 21 countries under financial sanctions and the UK also actively discourages individuals from investing in some of these countries, such as Iran. However, several countries that should be on the ‘embargo’ list are not, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and China. (Note that the type and extent of the appropriate embargo depends on the specifics of the situation. It may be that an arms embargo is sufficient, or that something stronger is needed that covers other types of trade).

On a more positive note, it could also do a significant amount of good for the British government to adopt a policy of non-compliance with unjust states. Non-compliance is one of Britain’s most effective peaceful means of applying pressure to these states. Suppose Britain were to stop the sale of fighter jets to Saudi Arabia on the grounds that they do not want to bolster a regime guilty of ongoing human rights violations. Would the human rights violations stop overnight? Probably not. But if other countries were to follow suit, positive change would be possible. The effectiveness of international isolation in overcoming South African apartheid is a key example in this regard. As more countries boycotted South Africa, internal supporters of the anti-apartheid movement gained strength. This, in addition to a severely politically and economically weakened government, sowed the seeds for the fall of apartheid.

The role of us, the people

Ultimately in a democracy it is up to us, the electorate, to decide what we want – we are the ones that can apply pressure on the government, and encourage political parties to adhere to our wishes. In pursuit of a better world – one in which our country is no longer complicit in atrocities committed abroad – we must recognise the sacrifice we are signing up to and be willing to undertake it. The sacrifice is largely financial. The sale of arms to Saudi Arabia boosts revenues for some UK companies who then pay a larger amount in corporation tax to the government. This additional money can be used to fund our schools, hospitals, welfare budget and our own military systems.

Demonstrators outside the National Gallery in London protest against an arms fair in 2011. [Source: sinister pictures/Demotix/Corbis]

Cuddling up to China increases the chance that this economic superpower invests in our country, thereby providing jobs and improving our infrastructure. Adopting a more humane foreign policy carries the likely side-effect of foregoing these economic benefits. At this one may raise concerns: many people are already struggling in this country – for example, 1 in 6 parents have gone without food in order to feed their families.  Weakening our economy by adopting a more just foreign policy, it could be argued, will place further strain on those that are already vulnerable. However, there are other ways of protecting these people such as initiating a fairer redistribution of wealth and a stronger clampdown on tax avoidance.

For too long Britain has been complicit in (and sometimes the directly cause of) suffering endured around the world. Innocent people die from British weaponry being misused. States that continue to oppress their people become more powerful as a result of British co-operation. This is at odds with the compassionate nature of the majority of British people, who on some measures are the most generous in the developed world. A new approach should be adopted, one that will always fight for people’s basic rights ahead of domestic self-interest.