Latest news with #armstrade
BBC News
30-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
UK F-35 parts exports to Israel is lawful, High Court rules
The UK's High Court has rejected a case brought by campaigners trying to stop the transfer to Israel of all British-made spare parts for US-produced F-35 fighter jets, saying it didn't have the constitutional authority to government suspended about 30 arms export licences to Israel last September because of a risk of UK-made weapons being used in violations of international law in the Gaza the UK supplies components to a global pool of F-35s which Israel can access. The government had argued it could not pull out of the defence programme without endangering international International and Human Rights Watch expressed their dismay at the ruling. Both groups had intervened in the case. "The horrifying reality in Gaza is unfolding in full view of the world: entire families obliterated, civilians killed in so-called safe zones, hospitals reduced to rubble, and a population driven into starvation by a cruel blockade and forced displacement," said Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK."This judgment does not change the facts on the ground, nor does it absolve the UK government of its responsibilities under international law."The two judges said the case was not about whether the UK should supply arms and other military equipment to Israel - because the government had decided it should were being asked to decide on a particular issue: whether the UK "must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration" because of the prospect that some UK-manufactured parts may be supplied to Israel and used in contravention of international law in the conflict in Gaza."Under our constitution, that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts," they industry makes 15% of every F-35, according to the Campaign Against the Arms which provided evidence to the court, said: "It is unconscionable that the government would continue to license the sale of components for F-35 jets knowing that they are used to deliberately attack civilians in Gaza and destroy their means of survival, including vital water supplies."The case was brought by al-Haq, a group based in the Israel-occupied West Bank, and the Global Legal Action Network against the Department for Business and court said that Business Minister Jonathan Reynolds was "faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue".The government also argued pulling out of the defence programme could undermine US confidence in the UK and human rights groups argue that the global rule of law is under threat over Gaza."The atrocities we are witnessing in Gaza are precisely because governments don't think the rules should apply to them," said Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch. "Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left the Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law, despite the government and the court acknowledging that there is a serious risk that UK equipment might be used to facilitate or carry out atrocities against them."The government says it will continue to keep its defence export licensing under review."The court has upheld this government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter," a spokesman for the human rights groups are considering if they can find grounds to appeal.
Sky News
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations
The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza. But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza - and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue. PM braced for pivotal vote - politics latest Lawyers acting for the government told judges "the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide" and "the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring". Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention. This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue. Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament - that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts. For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs "it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments". 0:42 'The UK cannot sit on our hands' Green MP Ellie Chowns said: "The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is 'no serious risk of genocide' in Gaza - and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision. "Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity. "While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying. "The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact." 'Why are these assessments being made?' "This contradiction at the heart of the government's position is stark," said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour's approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer. "Ministers say it's not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal 'genocide assessments' have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel. "If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they've refused to do the same." 8:04 Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a "sensitive and political issue" it should be a matter for the government, "which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court". Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: "This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers. "The government's disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands." What is the government's position? Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a "profound impact on international peace and security". The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets. As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts. Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position. "This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts - that can end up in Israel - should be sold," he said. "So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza. "On many issues they say it's not for the government to decide, but it's one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work." 0:55 Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic. "Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations," he said in a statement. 3:06 The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide. But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: "The court has upheld this government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. "This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review. "On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL). "The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs?
After the general election last July, The Guardian ran a column written by an anonymous Whitehall employee. Its headline was: 'After years of being gaslit by government, we civil servants can breathe again under Labour'. And, underneath, its author revealed that many of his or her colleagues were overjoyed about the Tories' defeat. One unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: 'I've never been so glad to see the back of a government.' Another gurgled: 'I feel professionally revitalised knowing that the adults are in charge.' Less than a year on, however, it seems that the mood in Whitehall isn't quite so euphoric. Some mandarins are finding that 'the adults' aren't to their taste, either. Or so I infer from the following story about the Foreign Office. Last month, more than 300 civil servants signed a letter to David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary. It questioned the continued sale of arms to Israel, accused the Government of contributing to 'the erosion of global norms', and complained about what its signatories saw as a 'stark… disregard for international law'. Now they've received a reply. But it probably isn't the one they were hoping for. Because Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, has written them a letter of his own – calmly explaining that, if they don't like the Government's policy on this or any other issue, they know where the door is. 'If your disagreement with any aspect of Government policy or action is profound,' he writes, 'your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service'. This is an admirably courteous way of putting it. Because he could very easily have gone for: 'Who the hell do you jumped-up busybodies think you are? You're civil servants, for crying out loud. Obeying the Government's orders is your literal job, whether you like it or not. The Government was elected. You weren't. So if you want to hang on to that gold-plated pension, you'll do what you're told and shut up.' Personally, I wish he had put it as bluntly as that. It's not often that I feel compelled to defend Sir Keir and co. But, like any administration, they deserve to know that Whitehall is there to serve them, not undermine them with letters of sanctimonious complaint. Which is why I feel we're entitled to ask: when will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs? At any rate, Labour party members must be in a panic. They'll be thinking: 'It was bad enough when we lost the support of the working class. But if we've lost the support of the lanyard class, we really are toast.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
When will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs?
After the general election last July, The Guardian ran a column written by an anonymous Whitehall employee. Its headline was: 'After years of being gaslit by government, we civil servants can breathe again under Labour'. And, underneath, its author revealed that many of his or her colleagues were overjoyed about the Tories' defeat. One unnamed civil servant was quoted as saying: 'I've never been so glad to see the back of a government.' Another gurgled: 'I feel professionally revitalised knowing that the adults are in charge.' Less than a year on, however, it seems that the mood in Whitehall isn't quite so euphoric. Some mandarins are finding that 'the adults' aren't to their taste, either. Or so I infer from the following story about the Foreign Office. Last month, more than 300 civil servants signed a letter to David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary. It questioned the continued sale of arms to Israel, accused the Government of contributing to 'the erosion of global norms', and complained about what its signatories saw as a 'stark… disregard for international law'. Now they've received a reply. But it probably isn't the one they were hoping for. Because Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, has written them a letter of his own – calmly explaining that, if they don't like the Government's policy on this or any other issue, they know where the door is. 'If your disagreement with any aspect of Government policy or action is profound,' he writes, 'your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service'. This is an admirably courteous way of putting it. Because he could very easily have gone for: 'Who the hell do you jumped-up busybodies think you are? You're civil servants, for crying out loud. Obeying the Government's orders is your literal job, whether you like it or not. The Government was elected. You weren't. So if you want to hang on to that gold-plated pension, you'll do what you're told and shut up.' Personally, I wish he had put it as bluntly as that. It's not often that I feel compelled to defend Sir Keir and co. But, like any administration, they deserve to know that Whitehall is there to serve them, not undermine them with letters of sanctimonious complaint. Which is why I feel we're entitled to ask: when will our pathetic civil servants stop moaning and just do their jobs? At any rate, Labour party members must be in a panic. They'll be thinking: 'It was bad enough when we lost the support of the working class. But if we've lost the support of the lanyard class, we really are toast.'
Russia Today
03-06-2025
- Business
- Russia Today
India's defense trade with Russia ‘rubbed US wrong way'
India's long-established arms trade with Russia has become a bone of contention with Washington, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said while addressing the eighth US-India Strategic Partnership Forum on Tuesday. The commerce secretary noted that US President Donald Trump had explicitly raised these issues with New Delhi and claimed that the Indian government was 'taking steps to address' them. Lutnick also suggested that India is 'starting to move towards buying military equipment from the US.' 'There were certain things that the Indian government did that generally rubbed the United States the wrong way. For instance, you generally buy your military gear from Russia. That's a way to kind of get under the skin of America if you're going to buy your armaments from Russia,' he said. He added that India's participation in the BRICS group, which challenges the hegemony of the US dollar, is 'not really the way to make friends and influence people in America.' #WATCH | Washington DC | US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick says, "...There were certain things that the Indian government did that generally rubbed the United States the wrong way. For instance, you generally buy your military gear from Russia. That's a way to kind of get… Currently, around 60% of the Indian military's equipment is of Russian origin. After the recent standoff with Pakistan, Modi praised the prowess of the country's air defense on Tuesday, particularly noting the performance of its Russian-made S-400 systems. 'Platforms like the S-400 have given unprecedented strength to the country,' Modi said in an address to the soldiers. The systems were acquired from Russia in 2016 at a cost of $5.4 billion, in defiance of a US threat to impose sanctions. Additionally, last month, India inaugurated a production unit for the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. The new facility will help New Delhi increase its defense stockpiles in light of what is a volatile security environment. Lutnik made his remarks on India's trade with Russia in the context of negotiations about a trade deal with India. While he reiterated Trump's view of India as 'very protectionist,' with tariffs on certain items reaching 100%, he said the countries are close to finalizing a trade pact that would benefit both. Lutnik stressed he is 'very optimistic' about reaching a deal with India 'in a not too distant future.' The US is India's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $131 billion in the last fiscal year, according to government data. India exports more to the US than it imports, resulting in a trade surplus of over $41 billion. Meanwhile, New Delhi and Moscow have set a target of increasing bilateral trade to $100 billion over the next five years. Bilateral trade between the two nations skyrocketed since 2022 to cross the $60 billion mark despite immense pressure from the West on New Delhi to cut economic and political ties with Moscow.
