The UK government has announced it is suspending 30 arms export licences to Israel for military equipment used in operations in Gaza.
The rationale for this decision was “the clear risk that items exported to Israel under these 30 licences might be used in serious violations of IHL [international humanitarian law]”.
Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 7 massacre of civilians by Hamas have drawn widespread criticism from human rights groups and the United Nations. The situation in Gaza is currently being investigated by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although the precise numbers are disputed, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed.
When David Lammy came into office as foreign secretary in July 2024, he commissioned a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law. It was the review’s assessment, according to reports, that Israel was not in compliance.
In the same month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson announced the UK would not make a submission to the ICC opposing an arrest warrant being issued for Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Dilemmas over arms sales and accountability for human rights abuses have been a perennial issue for Labour governments. This is often due to the moral language Labour ministers use to describe their foreign policy.
David Owen, Labour foreign secretary between 1977 and 1979, for example, promoted human rights as a central plank of his foreign policy. He argued: “In Britain we will take our stand on human rights in every corner of the globe”.
Owen cancelled a contract for military vehicles destined for El Salvador, leading to a heated row across Whitehall, with the Ministry of Defence arguing this would have serious repercussions for Britain’s arms industry. In the event, the prime minister, James Callaghan, sided with Owen thanks to the influence of Catholic aid agencies.
Yet Owen continued Britain’s support for the Pahlavi regime in Iran, which was accused of serious human rights abuses. He defended this on philosophical grounds, asserting the “morality of compromise”, informed by his Christianity and the value pluralism of political theorist Isaiah Berlin.
In 1997, Robin Cook, when newly appointed as foreign secretary, announced that henceforth “our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension”, and “the Labour government will put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy”.
Soon afterwards, these aims would be put to the test when Cook sought to ban arms sales to Indonesia due to their political repression of the Timorese. Prime Minister Tony Blair was sceptical of the ethical rhetoric and wary of harming exports, only allowing their suspension after pro-government militias committed atrocities following an independence referendum.
The New Labour government did introduce greater transparency, controls and scrutiny of arms exports. Yet arms sales would again cause embarrassment later in Blair’s tenure, when he personally intervened to stop a Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery of Saudi officials – allegedly at the Saudi government’s request. This underlined the extent to which international law and moral rhetoric are often overruled on national security grounds.
Lammy’s intervention is interesting given his professed desire to pursue a “progressive realist” foreign policy. In an article for Foreign Affairs published in May 2024, Lammy praised Cook’s commitment to progressive values such as human rights, yet counterbalanced this with another foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, and his supposed realism.
This approach would seem to be playing out in the way the licences to Israel were suspended. Only around 10% were stopped, with the other 320 continuing, and those related to the F35 fighter programme ringfenced from any export restrictions.
Although Lammy doesn’t cite Owen as an influence, there are strong echoes of Owen’s acceptance of compromise as a feature of foreign policy. Yet, such an approach often attracts greater criticism, alienating both those who deny the relevance of morality to foreign policy, and those who see politics (and international law) in morally absolute terms.
The way Lammy has applied these restrictions underscores the extent to which such decisions are political. Although the suspensions were couched in legal language and justified on international humanitarian law grounds, they are ultimately a political statement.
The UK government is expressing its disapproval of Israel’s conduct in Gaza in a way that reflects the political context within which they are operating. It has sent a message to the Israeli government without making any real difference to Israel’s capacity to defend itself. And it has couched that decision in legal terms to avoid clashing with the US government on the matter.
The previous government received similar legal advice but chose not to act. This was an equally political choice.
Making this decision shores up the UK’s credibility as a supporter of international humanitarian law at home and abroad. If it encourages compromise and a hostage deal, the hope is that the hostages, including 14 British citizens, might return home and the people of Gaza might be able to rebuild their lives.
Jamie Gaskarth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
