---

Strategic Export Controls

I want first to express my pleasure at the Government's strategic export control system and the work done by the Committees on strategic export controls chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry). The system that has been instituted for strategic export controls is one of which the Government and the country can be proud, and although further improvements may still be required, it is important to make the point that the system, and parliamentary scrutiny of it, have provided all hon. Members with far greater means than they had previously of getting a handle, if I may put it in that way, on arms exports from this country, and of raising issues of concern. I do not want that point to be lost in what I shall say subsequently, which will focus more on criticism. I want to use the opportunity of the debate to focus on arms exports to two countries—Israel and Sri Lanka. Although they are very different countries, they raise similar issues. Both their Governments use arms disproportionately and without taking sufficient care or account of the need, under international law, to avoid collateral damage and harm to civilians where there is armed conflict. Members might know that I raised the issue of arms to Israel long ago when I was a member of the former Quadripartite Committee, so I am pleased that, according to the tables on pages 133 and 134 of the Committees' report, it appears that the Government's more stringent policy in assessing arms export applications to Israel has been put into effect and has resulted in a significantly higher level of licence application refusals. I remind Members of the background to the Government's policy change, which was instituted thanks to the vigilance of our embassy employees based in Tel Aviv—I think—to whom it became obvious that the Israeli authorities had given wholly false assurances to the British Government over previous arms sales: they assured the Government that the equipment would not be used in the occupied territories. Thanks to the vigilance of our embassy employees, it was found that vehicles had been modified and used in the occupied territories, thus demonstrating that any future assurances given by the Israeli authorities were not trustworthy and could not be relied upon. I am pleased, therefore, about the evidence that the British Government are looking carefully at applications for arms exports to Israel. Having said that, I was slightly disturbed by a quote from the previous Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), in which she pointed out that only 0.1 per cent. of Israel's total arms exports comes from the United Kingdom. She appeared to be saying, therefore, not that what we do does not matter, but that it is not that important. However, I think that it is very important not simply because the UK Government should not be complicit in arms being used in a way contrary to international law, but because by exercising such controls we send a clear message to foreign Governments about the standards that the Government believe should be upheld. Israel has a strong arms industry of its own, which means that it can plug any gaps, but the fact that the level of our arms sales to Israel is so low sets an example and sends a strong message that we believe that international law should be adhered to in all circumstances and that we exercise such controls because we do not believe that the Israeli Government adhere to international law in all circumstances. It is right to send that strong and powerful message to the Israeli Government and public. I shall make a slight digression. I have raised before the technical issue about which of our arms export criteria apply to the occupied territories. Clearly, there is no internal oppression by the Israeli Government, because it is clear under international law that the occupied territories are just that—occupied—and not part of Israel. Neither is Israel acting aggressively against another country, because there is not yet a recognised Palestinian state. I suppose that they could fall under the middle criteria about not provoking or prolonging armed conflict, or aggravating existing tensions or conflicts, in the country of final destination, but again the occupied territories are not a recognised country. I am not saying, ““Well, therefore, it does not matter and we can export any old arms to Israel for use in the occupied territories, because they are not covered by the criteria””. I simply point out that the criteria appear to leave a slight gap when one country using arms is occupying another territory that does not have statehood. I want to reiterate the point that the Israeli Government have form in using high and low-tech weapons carelessly and without sufficient concern in areas where civilians will obviously be hit—I am not saying that they deliberately target civilians. I have seen the effect of those policies in Gaza, and particularly in southern Lebanon, which I visited immediately after the war. The consequences in southern Lebanon, and parts of Beirut, of the Israeli bombardment were appalling. The bombardment was clearly wholly disproportionate and demonstrated complete disregard for civilian casualties. Commonly, the Israeli Government use the excuse that their opponents—Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas, and others, in Gaza—are responsible for civilian damage, because they release rockets against Israeli territory from areas where civilians live. I make no justification for the behaviour of Hezbollah or Hamas, but I strenuously reject the notion that because rockets are fired from civilian areas the Israeli Government are absolved of their responsibility to act within international law in all circumstances. During military action in Iraq, the British Government took care to have lawyers present at every military action advising on whether it was legal and took sufficient account under international law of the need to avoid damage to civilians. Our Government know that it is the responsibility of the Government using weapons to assure themselves that the probability of civilian damage is extremely low and that they are taking all possible care to avoid civilian casualties. On the other hand, the Israelis have used bunker-buster bombs in southern Lebanon and other high-tech weapons in Gaza, supposedly to assassinate ““targets””—known militants. They are aware of the level of tolerance in the accuracy of their weapons and they know that they are using them in densely populated areas so they cannot possibly be reasonably assured that they do not present a huge risk of innocent civilian deaths. Figures from Gaza clearly demonstrate a very high number of innocent civilians being killed using those methods. I urge the British Government, therefore, to be extremely vigilant in scrutinising future export licence applications relating to Israel, and to bear in mind the Israeli Government's record and their apparent complete disregard for international law. The second country that I am concerned about is Sri Lanka. My interest in the matter arises from the fact that a number of my constituents are of Sri Lankan-Tamil origin. Several of them have been active for a great many years in a charity that supports orphans and schools in Sri Lanka—mainly, but not exclusively, in the Tamil areas. One of those constituents has only just returned from a visit to Sri Lanka. There is no absolutely no dispute about sovereignty in Sri Lanka, because the Sri Lankan Government have sovereignty over the whole island, but there has been long-running insurrection in the Tamil areas. I do not seek in the slightest to justify the violent actions of the Tamil Tigers, including their pioneering of the use of suicide bombing, but as well as the violent action, there is in the Tamil communities in Sri Lanka perfectly legitimate non-violent and political agitation to gain autonomy and respect for their community rights. Although the previous Sri Lankan Government, with a great deal of international help and support, seemed to be moving towards a negotiated settlement with the Tamil Tigers and other groups in the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, I am deeply concerned that the current Sri Lankan Government appear to have instituted a sharp change in policy. They now eschew negotiation and seem to believe that they can achieve a military solution. Not only do they use military action against the armed groups in a way that shows blatant disregard for collateral civilian damage, but they involve themselves—either directly or by turning a blind eye to what other groups do—in the wholesale repression of, and discrimination against, the Tamil population at large. Some of the more egregious examples of that were several assassinations, including those of two Tamil-elected Members of the Sri Lankan Parliament in extremely suspicious circumstances, which suggests at the very least that the Sri Lankan Government turned a blind eye to what was going on—and perhaps something worse. In those circumstances, it is important that the British Government and the European Union examine carefully any arms sales to Sri Lanka. The country faces relatively few external threats, but for a country of its nature, its spending on defence is large and growing. As I mentioned, it has also used high-tech weapons—fighter jets in particular—disproportionately and caused a significant number of civilian deaths and injuries. One of my constituents drew my attention in particular to one of their schools where the fighter jets were used, presumably against an armed group, but hit and damaged the school and injured a number of children. I ask the Government to look urgently at any arms sales being proposed to Sri Lanka, to talk with their European Union allies to ensure that they, too, are aware of the situation, and to ensure that there are up-to-date briefings from Sri Lanka about the way in which the current Sri Lankan Government seem to be using weapons against their own population—whether armed or not—in a systematic attempt to expunge not only separatist claims by Tamil Sri Lankans, but even perfectly reasonably and legitimate claims for autonomy and the recognition of their minority rights.