David Cameron opposes arms sales to human rights violators

Greater regulation of the arms trade has long been a concern of ConservativeHome and it was an issue we raised with David Davis and David Cameron during last year's leadership race.

David Cameron has today taken very welcome steps towards identifying our party with an issue of justice (arms are used by undesirable regimes against their people) and of national security (there is a record of arming regimes that later use them against us).   He made these remarks on the day that Amnesty International supporters lobbied parliament  in favour of "an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a legal instrument that would prohibit arms transfers to destinations where they are likely to be used to commit grave human rights violations or undermine development":

“Uncontrolled arms sales help to fuel brutal and destabilising conflicts around the world. There is a profound moral imperative to ensure that the global arms trade is governed by firm, consistent and fair rules.  It will take a lot of work to firm-up and secure international agreement on the details of such a Treaty. Mrs Beckett should make a start straight away, and champion the Treaty ahead of the UN General Assembly meeting this summer.  Such a Treaty would be in the British national interest. The British arms industry already plays by the rules, operating to some of the highest standards in the world. An International Arms Trade Treaty would help force less scrupulous countries to raise their game, and stop selling arms to unsuitable regimes. Britain already has its house in order; it is time now for other countries to follow suit.”

Over coming months we hope the Tory leadership will go further.  ConservativeHome, for example, has grave reservations about arms sales to Saudi Arabia and was disappointed that a new arms contract to the totalitarian desert kingdom was welcomed by the Conservative frontbench when it was announced last December.  That debate is for another day, however... today's intervention is a substantial step in the right direction for a party, that in 1996, was damned by Sir Richard Scott's Arms to Iraq Report.

Comments

[Richard]

What will this do to our relationship with Saudi Arabia? How badly will it affect the British arms industry? These are questions of realpolitik that cannot be ignored.

[Umbongo]

Thank God - this is what all of us down at the Red Lion have been waiting for. Mind you it'll mean a hell of a lot of jobs lost but who cares it's only "big business" that loses out and we know what DC thinks of them. And it's not all bad news to the purchasers either because our "partners" in Europe (clue: France) will be only too pleased to take up the slack.

[Slave Trader]

I've just arrived in my time travel machine and would like to agree 100pc with Mr Richard of Realpolitik. I live in the age of slavery and these slaves are absolutely essential to my factories. These moralists don't have any idea how to make money. I have assured that do-gooding Mr Wilberforce that my slaves are well fed and perfectly happy. At least my right hand man tells me that they are happy. Mr Cameron sounds a dreadful fellow wanting to stop governments from keeping their peoples under control. Get rid of slavery and control the arms trade! What next? Democracy for Africans? An end to children keeping my chimney clean?

[Richard]

"I live in the age of slavery and these slaves are absolutely essential to my factories. These moralists don't have any idea how to make money."

We live in the age of sweatshops. Anyway, didn't they abolish slavery when it ceased to become profitable?

"Mr Cameron sounds a dreadful fellow wanting to stop governments from keeping their peoples under control."

Say hello to an Islamic fundamentalist government in Saudi Arabia

" What next? Democracy for Africans?"

Fat lot of good it's done them.

"An end to children keeping my chimney clean?"

We have advanced to a stage where we no longer need chimney sweeps. It's called economic progress. Perhaps you'd like to shut down third world sweat shops and deprive many families of a vital income? Not everyone can live like the West yet.

[Richard]

Ceased to BE profitable, sorry.

[Graeme Archer]

This is indeed a great step forward.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Is the government still pushing for the arms embargo on PR China to be lifted? What's the Conservative stance on this?

[Richard]

"The British arms industry already plays by the rules, operating to some of the highest standards in the world."

Despite my previous post I do feel rather smug when I see that.

[Denis Cooper]

More government by international treaty.

"Such a Treaty would be in the British national interest. The British arms industry already plays by the rules, operating to some of the highest standards in the world. An International Arms Trade Treaty would help force less scrupulous countries to raise their game, and stop selling arms to unsuitable regimes. Britain already has its house in order; it is time now for other countries to follow suit."

This is exactly the kind of fallacious reasoning which led to the European Convention on Human Rights, now incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act. Of course by 1950 WE no longer executed people without a fair trial, or tortured suspects - we gave up those practices long before - but other countries still did, and some had recently indulged in large scale barbarism. So we tried to bind them with an international treaty, largely written by British lawyers, in the hope that they would follow our good example.

Which only worked to a very limited extent, and also meant that about half a century later we turned round and found that we could no longer execute ANYBODY, no matter how horrendous their crime (even high treason), and how incontrovertible the evidence, and we could no longer even send ungrateful scumbags like Abu Qatada back where they belonged, in case, oh dear, SOMEBODY ELSE might torture them.

If we think that it's wrong to sell arms to certain regimes - which it certainly is, in some cases - then we shouldn't allow the British arms industry to sell arms to them, we should announce why we have taken that decision, publicly appeal to others to "follow suit", take due note of those which do, and those which don't, and adjust our foreign policy accordingly.

Not tie our hands so that in a couple of decades our democratically elected government finds that it can only pursue the correct foreign policy objectives for this country by contravening "international law", the original International Arms Trade Treaty, plus a few Protocols quietly added on later, plus the "case law" as "developed" by completely unaccountable judges at some international court, while other "less scrupulous countries" are still doing exactly as they please despite their notional "obligations" under that treaty.

[Deputy Editor]

It was only 5 months ago when Gerald Howarth MP, and now a member of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, said
"The decision by the Saudi government to purchase the Typhoon is welcome news for the UK defence industry and demonstrates the enduring relationship between Saudi Arabia and the UK."

[Peregrine]

A moral arms policy is a toy in the play pen of utopians, whereas an effective second chamber or house with authority and effectiveness is a real and achievable goal.

Before we start saving the world let us save ourselves.

[kingbongo]

Slavery - didn't cease to be profitable, that's one of those urban myths we all rely on. This is why it was used by the nazis and Stalin, and is still used in India, China and various other parts of the world (such as the UK sex industry)

Arms Industry - if we regulate it by international treaty then that should provide more opportunities for our own defence suppliers. Realpolitik plays its part; Saudi is horrible but capable of reform, Zimbabwe is horrible and needs a new government. A bit of AND theory needed here not dogmatism on either side.

I really can't beleive people can post here and criticise DC for being against selling arms to regimes who use them in order to prevent a change towards democracy in their own country. No wonder we were 'the nasty party' for so long.

[PassingThru]

Face facts. If we dont sell them, someone else will. Taking an idealist stance towards it isnt going to change that reality.

[Gildas]

Being more picky about which governments we sell to is fine, however we should beware organisations like Amnesty International, whose agenda in this area goes much further.
They are opposed to the civilian ownership of arms and want to see a treaty that would bar the supply of weapons to "non-state actors". In plain English, that means that we would be prohibited from arming Mugabe's victims or the people of Darfur. Amnesty prefers picturesque victims to allowing people to fight back.

[Shaun]

"Which only worked to a very limited extent"
What do you mean? Do any of the other signatories still indulge in it.

"also meant that about half a century later we turned round and found that we could no longer execute ANYBODY, no matter how horrendous their crime (even high treason), and how incontrovertible the evidence"
I believe that was part of the Treaty of Copenhagen that set minimum standards for entry to the EU, such as established democratic norms and so on. I believe that Britain, having long ago abolished the death penalty, was at the fore in pushing for the abolition to be made standard accross Europe. In reality most EU members (Including us) had already abolished capital punishment before this became international law.

"and we could no longer even send ungrateful scumbags like Abu Qatada back where they belonged, in case, oh dear, SOMEBODY ELSE might torture them."
Having read the Law Lords verdict on that it actually rests more on English common law than it does on the Human Rights Act. Particularly that the English judicial system has rejected evidence on the basis of torture for quite some time and opposed the use of torture by Charles I who had to supersede the normal judges to get through what he wanted.

This should be an issue of pride for our country not one that we are upset about and, frankly, I feel exactly the same about what Cameron's saying here.

"Anyway, didn't they abolish slavery when it ceased to become profitable?"
No, slavery and the slave trade were still very profitable when they were abolished. It's one of those interesting historical peculiarities that Gladstone's maiden speech was in support of the slave trade from which his Liverpool father made a lot of money.

[Chad]

Britain already has its house in order; it is time now for other countries to follow suit.

Let's be clear, David Cameron isn't proposing any action on the part of the UK, as he considers it to have its "house in order".

That is great news. I emailed Amnesty International to confirm that Cameron is telling the truth, and that Britain is not partaking in sales of arms to any countries that Amnesty considers to be unsuitable.

[johnC]

This is good news, and another issue on which Cameron can score easy points and take the moral high ground. We should be lambasting the government for their apparent willingness to go along with the EU proposal to lift the arms embargo on China.

Another proposal which it would be good for
Cameron to champion is the Maritime Labour Convention which has recently been drawn up by the ILO. This sets international standards and guidelines for conditions of work in the shipping industry. This is also in the national interest, as for years the British shipping industry, which is subject to strict controls, has faced competition from foreign ships registered under flags of convenience which often treat their crews appallingly badly.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Amnesty prefers picturesque victims to allowing people to fight back."

Spot on. That is one organisation that has almost completely degenerated.

[Christina]

An Idealistic stance would be to stop arms dealing with certain regimes believing that no other country will sell to them either.

A Moral stance is for us to stop selling to them sadly accepting that other countries will. The other countries, of course, will lose moral high ground in International negotiations and at the UN, and EU, if a member.

By taking a lead on this, we may be able to influence on the International scence, but not believing it inevitable as Idealists would.

[Umbongo]

Christina

In a spirit of genuine enquiry could you tell me where this "moral highground" is located. It seems that, for instance, PR of China is an enormous influence at the UN and elsewhere but does not feel it necessary to occupy any moral highground at all. The same goes for Russia. Is the "moral highground" at the same place as the "top table" of the EU our europhile colleagues tell us is always open to the UK as long as we cough up and shut up?