A HOUSE of Lords inquiry has concluded it is “highly likely” that UK weaponry had caused “significant” civilian casualties during Yemen’s four-year civil war.
The International Relations Committee says Britain is “narrowly on the wrong side” of international humanitarian law over arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It says relying on assurances by the Saudis that they were not targeting civilians was not an “adequate way” of implementing the UK’s obligations under the international Arms Trade Treaty.
The Government has faced repeated calls to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia after the latter began air strikes in March 2015 against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who seized control of large swathes of the country.
Last year, the United Nations Human Rights Office estimated that at least 6600 civilians had died as a result of indiscriminate bombing and another 10,000 had been injured, although it acknowledged the true figures were likely to be significantly higher. In its report, published today, the committee said that since the start of the conflict the UK had licensed £4.7 billion of arms exports to Saudi Arabia and a further £860 million to its partners in the international coalition against the Houthis.
Typhoon jet fighters and associated systems accounted for the majority of exports approved for the Saudis.
In evidence to the committee, ministers argued that the Government’s licensing process was “narrowly on the right side of international humanitarian law”. The committee, however, said: “Although conclusive evidence is not yet available, we assess that it is narrowly on the wrong side.
“Given the volume and type of arms being exported to the Saudi-led coalition, we believe they are highly likely to be the cause of significant civilian casualties in Yemen, risking the contravention of international humanitarian law. We are deeply concerned that the Saudi-led coalition’s misuse of their weaponry is causing, whether deliberately or accidentally, loss of civilian life.”
Overall, the committee described the humanitarian situation in Yemen, with more than 10 million people reliant on World Food Programme support, as “unconscionable”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel