British diplomat’s resignation over arms for Israel opens a can of worms
Friday was Mark Smith’s last day as a British diplomat and he said goodbye to colleagues in a humdinger of an email accusing his former employer of complicity in Israeli war crimes.
“Each day we witness clear and unquestionable examples of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza perpetrated by the state of Israel,” he wrote. The email continued:
“Senior members of the Israeli government and military have expressed open genocidal intent, Israeli soldiers take videos, deliberately burning destroying, and looting civilian property and openly admit to the rape and torture of prisoners.
“Over half of Gaza’s homes and over 80% of commercial properties have been damaged or destroyed. Whole streets and universities have been demolished, humanitarian aid is being blocked and civilians are regularly left with no safe quarter to flee to. Red Crescent ambulances have been attacked, schools and hospitals are regularly targeted. These are war crimes.
“There is no justification for the UK’s continued arms sales to Israel yet somehow it continues.”
At the time he left, Smith was Second Secretary at the British embassy in Dublin but, as his email indicated, he was familiar with the law relating to arms sales, having previously worked on assessing export licences to the Middle East.
His resignation comes at an awkward time for the new Labour government which has spent its first six weeks dithering over the issue.
The Conservative government had shown fewer qualms where arms sales to “friends” of Britain were concerned. When Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary and Saudi Arabia was bombing Yemen, supplies of military equipment continued despite obvious illegalities.
Regarding Israel, the Conservative government obtained legal advice on arms sales but resolutely declined to say what the advice was. (Draw your own conclusions from that.)
‘Upholding international law’
On Saturday, the Foreign Office refused to confirm or deny Smith’s resignation (on the grounds that “we do not comment on individual cases”) but a spokesperson said:
“This government is committed to upholding international law. We have made clear that we will not export items if they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violations of international humanitarian law.
“There is an ongoing review process to assess whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law, which the Foreign Secretary initiated on day one in office. We will provide an update as soon as that review process has been completed.”
The British government may be hoping that maintaining uncertainty about arms supplies — at least for the time being — will help pressurise Israel to accept a ceasefire. In the event of a ceasefire it may then conclude that the question of a suspension no longer arises.
Using arms supplies as a diplomatic lever misses the main point, though. In April, Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, told a parliamentary committee that while the UK government was unlikely to end up in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) given the relatively small scale of its involvement in the arms trade to Israel, there was a bigger principle at stake. He assumed, he said, “that the UK government would wish to comply with its international obligations, and not simply to avoid a situation in which its non-compliance was brought before the ICJ.”
As Leader of the Opposition when the Gaza war broke out, Keir Starmer strongly supported Israel’s “right to defend itself” — a stance that cost Labour votes in the subsequent general election (though it still won by a landslide).
Shifting views of Israel
Since the war began perceptions of Israel among the British public have clearly shifted in a negative direction — for all the reasons set out in Mark Smith’s email — and the government seems in a quandary over how to proceed. There are also signs of discontent simmering among Foreign Office staff.
Civil servants are supposed to be neutral, implementing the government’s policies come what may. But it’s a different matter when they believe they are being asked to break the law.
Smith is thought to be the first diplomat to resign over the issue but, judging by the email, his concerns are widely shared. The Foreign Office claims to have caring ways of dealing with such concerns (including counselling):
“We have processes in place for staff to raise individual concerns, including if they have a particular policy concern. We have a number of sources of support for staff to receive advice, guidance and/or pastoral/counselling support. These include dedicated internal teams for staff serving in the UK and Overseas, Staff Counsellors, the Employee Assistance Programme and extensive wellbeing resources.”
Meanwhile, Smith’s email tells a different story …
“I have raised this at every level in the organisation including through an official whistle blowing investigation and received nothing more than ‘thank you we have noted your concerns’.
“Ministers claim that the UK has one of the most ‘robust and transparent’ arms export licensing regimes in the world, however this is the opposite of the truth. As a fully cleared officer raising serious concerns of illegality in this department, to be disregarded in this way is deeply troubling. It is my duty as a public servant to raise this.
“I urge you as officers of good conscience to join the many colleagues who have also raised concerns over this issue. The FCDO has some of the most brilliant, hard-working and good-hearted people I have ever known and I have been proud to work alongside you.
“I hope that we can look back on history and be proud. Best regards, Mark.”
Originally published at https://al-bab.com.
