UK arms trade: A trifecta of everything that’s wrong

I am not easily shocked by the mendacity of UK arms export policy. As a long-time observer of British involvement in the arms trade, I have seen sniper rifles described as ‘crowd control goods’, repeated instances of civilian harm reduced to ‘isolated incidents’, and risks of harm dismissed as ‘theoretical’ rather than ‘clear.’ Nonetheless, John McEvoy’s recent story about UK arms exports to Israel left me shaking my head and shouting at the screen. Here’s why. Amidst the carnage of Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza since October 2023, arms trade experts have been trying to track the global supply chains and international policy responses that have facilitated it, and to identify routes for legal and political accountability. In September 2024 the government announced a partial ban on arms exports to Israel, the massive loophole of the exclusion of parts for the F-35 fighter jet notwithstanding. A year later, observers were puzzled to learn that, after the partial ban, the UK government had issued to Israel “two licences worth £120 million supporting the onward export of equipment to a single programme in a NATO country.” What were these licences for, who was the NATO country, and why were the parts going via Israel? Most of us batted around a few ideas and then put it on the ‘tricky but inconclusive’ pile. Not John McEvoy, and not Declassified, nor Campaign Against Arms Trade which helped investigate. Waste, delay and failure Every step of the story that has unfolded is astonishing, illuminating the trifecta of everything that’s wrong with the arms trade. First up: waste, delay and failure. We are told that arms exports are important for keeping domestic production lines running so that the British armed forces can have the best weapons. Yet time and again, procurement decisions waste taxpayers’ money, siphoning it into the pockets of arms industry shareholders, via programmes that fail to deliver the weapons and equipment the armed forces need for the wars the government insists on sending them into. The Watchkeeper drone has cost British taxpayers more than £1.5 billion, failed to deliver its operational promises and will be retired early. But not before the company, UAV Tactical Systems (U-TacS) – a joint venture between French arms firm Thales and Israel’s Elbit Systems – charged the Ministry of Defence £50,000 for amendments to contracts and £18,000 a month for accommodation for two technicians. If you’re wondering, ‘profiteering’ is the correct term for this. Flaunting controls Second is the repeated failure of the UK government to enforce its own controls. This happens with such regularity that it’s fair to say the government is more interested in legitimising its actions than actually restricting the circulation of weapons. This problem is particularly pronounced in relation to Israel. Not only have UK arms exports to Israel continued despite its repeated presence on the Foreign Office list of “countries of concern” in relation to human rights, but the government has also amended its own guidance in the past, to allow weapons components to reach Israel via the United States – this was twenty-odd years before today’s infamous F-35 “Carve-Out”. And when faced with criticism, the government massages the truth. More than 25 years ago, the government was forced to refuse Israeli ‘assurances’ after it emerged that the IDF was using UK-supplied weaponry in Occupied Palestinian Territory when it said it wouldn’t. But even this wasn’t the high-minded response it sounds like: the government moved to prevent future embarrassment caused by Israel ignoring assurances by no longer asking for them. The revelation in this month’s story that left me gasping with surprise was that Elbit filed a “force majeure” declaration in its contract with Romania for the export of Watchkeepers due to the demands of the war in Gaza, allowing it to keep the UK-supplied parts in Israel. Force majeure refers to unexpected, unforeseen events beyond the control of the state. But Israel’s response to the Hamas-led attacks of October 2023 has been entirely in the state’s control and was neither unexpected nor unforeseen – it was ordered by Israeli politicians. That the UK government would accept the violation of its own rules – which required Israel to re-export the parts to Romania as per the terms of the contract – means it either didn’t know or didn’t care. Either is a gross failure of controls at a particularly sensitive time for arms exports. Historical amnesia The third element of this story is historical amnesia. Declassified reported that Israel tested the Watchkeeper drones at Fiq airbase in the Golan Heights – a region of southwest Syria that has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967. The UK government itself acknowledges that the occupation of the Golan Heights is illegal. In 2008, the UK government even requested that Elbit relocate test flights for the Watchkeeper away from Fiq. Whether by design or failure, this inability to remember basic historical facts is another key pattern of UK arms export policy. Usually, the government treats each round of violence as a blank slate, disconnected from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and system of apartheid of which each lethal assault is a part, which means arms exports can continue because there is no ‘clear risk’ of their misuse. This time it hasn’t even bothered with this pretense. Deep systemic problems I’ve watched UK arms export policy long enough to have come to view that not every cock-up is a conspiracy. I wouldn’t be surprised if John McEvoy’s story was news to every licensing official in the Export Control Joint Unit. There is a lack of capacity and knowledge in the civil service to properly enforce UK controls, some old-fashioned bureaucratic inertia and, crucially – in particular in relation to cases like Israel and also Saudi Arabia in relation to the war in Yemen – when exports become politically sensitive, they are subject to ministerial direction. Civil servants give the answer expected of them, and an arms export licensing role isn’t one to blow the whistle from, it seems. John McEvoy and the Declassified team showcase investigative journalism at its best. While news cycles move on, much to warmongers’ approval, Declassified chips away at the systems that support war. And the lessons for us, dear reader? If you’re not already angry about the UK aiding and abetting a genocide, be angry at the waste of your tax pounds on ineffective weapons during a cost of living crisis.