Parliamentary committee questions UK arms exports to Sri Lanka

17 July 2013 A report by a parliamentary committee has criticised exports of arms to countries that the Foreign Office has expressed human rights concerns about. The House of Commons Committees on Arms Export Controls concluded in their 2013 report that over 3,000 export licenses, worth over 12bn, were approved by the UK to the 27 countries in question, including Sri Lanka. The report says the sales to Sri Lanka, worth over 8mn raised very serious questions. The committees chairman, Conservative MP Sir John Stanley, said he was astonished at the scale of the exports, to countries including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Zimbabwe. When I first wrote to Vince Cable [the Business Secretary] I had no idea that the figures involved would be so large I thought someone may have added some zeros by mistake; 12bn is an absolutely huge sum. I asked Vince Cable to confirm they were accurate and, apart from a small adjustment for Iran, they all were. We shall continue to seek more clarification from the Government. We would like to know, for example, whether the cryptographic equipment can be used on internal dissent, and its possible military use. There are other, quite clear areas of concern; 600 assault rifles were sold to Sri Lanka, despite the very well documented cases of human rights

abuse there. We have to ask the Government why this is the case. Arms licences to Sri Lanka included pistols, small arms ammunition and approval for the sale assault rifles. The Government needs to acknowledge that theres an inherent conflict between strongly promoting arms exports to authoritarian regimes whilst strongly criticising their lack of human rights at the same time. Instead they continue to claim these two policies are mutually reinforcing. See Volume I, Volume II and Volume III of the report. See here for full list of goods approved for export. For extracts on Sri Lanka, see below: The Committees recommend that the Government states in its Response how the statement made by the FCO Minister Alistair Burt on 20 February 2013 that during the period 1 July30 September 2012 only 2 arms export licences were approved to the Sri Lankan military can be reconciled with the information put on the BIS website for licences approved to Sri Lanka in this period as reproduced in paragraph 496 of the Memorandum from the Chairman of the Committees in Volume II. The Committees further recommend that the Government in its Response to this Report states whether it is satisfied that none of the 49 extant UK export licences to Sri Lanka: a) contravenes the Governments stated policy that: We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk that the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression; or b) is currently in contravention of any of the arms exports Criteria set out in the UKs Consolidated Criteria and the EU Common Position including those extant licences to Sri Lanka for: acoustic devices for riot control, body armour, military helmets, all-wheel

drive vehicles with ballistic protection, military support vehicles, assault rifles, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, rifles, small arms ammunition, weapon sights, combat shotguns and equipment employing cryptography. Refer to Volume II, paragraphs 492499.) *** In the Westminster Hall debate on 13 December 2012 on the Committees 2012 Report (HC419) Mike Gapes said: A few years ago, during the civil war in Sri Lanka, an arms embargo was put in place and yet when there was a ceasefire, that embargo was not maintainedthis was under the previous Governmentand the Sri Lankan Government bought all kinds of things, including ammunition, small arms, components and a huge amount of hardware that was used by their armed forces. That ceasefire broke down after 2002, and in 2009 we saw scenes of absolute carnage and brutality when the Sri Lankan armed forces decided to eliminate the Tamil Tigers. I am not here to speak for or defend the Tamil Tigers, but it is clear that there is strong case for the Sri Lankan Government to participate in a proper independent international inquiry into the war crimes that were carried out. Many of those crimes were carried out using weaponry that had been imported from around the world. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were unable to tell us whether UK-supplied ammunition, components or weapons were used by Sri Lankan Government forces, but I suspect that they were. In replying to the debate the BIS Minister, Michael Fallon, commented regarding Mike Gapes statement that: I regard him as one of the most well informed, perhaps the best informed, Member of the House on Sri Lanka, and we should take careful note of what he said on that subject today.

*** On 18 February 2013 The Independent newspaper published an article stating that the UK Government had sold arms to the Sri Lankan regime. This was despite the countries dire human rights record. Figures taken from the ECO database showed that the UK Government had sold over 3 million worth of small arms and weaponry [in the period July to September 2012]. These included pistols, rifles, assault rifles, body armour and combat shotguns. The article stated that: The sales indicate how far President Mahinda Rajapaksas government has been welcomed back into the international fold by Britain, despite the behaviour of his armed forces during the brutal last few months of the 2009 civil war. The article continued by claiming that both sides in the civil war had been accused of human rights abuses and that the Sri Lankan government had resisted international calls for an independent investigation into well-documented allegations that Sri Lankan Army soldiers were involved in rape, torture, extra-judicial killings and the deliberate targeting of civilians. The FCO Minister, Alistair Burt, issued a press notice on 20 February 2013 rebutting the Independent article. He said that he was disappointed to read the article [...] which misrepresented the UKs export control policy towards Sri Lanka. He stated that: The article suggested the UK had changed its policy towards Sri Lanka and was focused on selling more arms to the Sri Lankan military. The Minister went on to say: During the period your article covered, [1 July 30 September 2012] only 2 licences were approved to the Sri Lankan military. One licence related to shotgun cartridges for sporting use and the other for communications equipment for a transport aircraft. He continued by stating that the small arms mentioned in the article were for export to private maritime security companies engaged in legitimate work countering the threat of piracy in

the region. He said that the export licence applications had been considered thoroughly against the UKs export licensing criteria. *** Committee questions and Government answers: Given that Sri Lanka is listed as a country of concern, in the FCOs 2011 Human Rights and Democracy report, the Committees wish to have more information on why a SIEL for anti-riot/ballistic shields was granted; why SITCLs for assault rifles, body armour, components for body armour, military helmets, pistols, small arms ammunition and weapon sights were approved; and why OITCLs for assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for pistols, components for rifles, machine guns, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, wall/door breaching projectiles/ammunition, weapon night sights and weapon sights were issued? Many of these licences were granted for equipment to be used by private security companies for anti-piracy activities. Due to the increase in armed piracy covering an area from the Gulf of Aden to the East Coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean, private security companies (PSCs) are being asked to provide armed guards by their clients to enable commercial vessels to operate safely in these areas. Licences for weapons, ammunition and protective equipment for anti-piracy applications are considered thoroughly against Criteria 1, 2 & 7. PSCs require open licences to give them the flexibility to respond quickly to a request for an armed presence on vessels. The supply of such anti-piracy equipment will only be authorised under an open licence if the following strict conditions are met: activity is limited to vessels which are registered to a Flag State: the PSC must have signed Committees on Arms Export Controls: Memorandum from the Chair to the

Committees up to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and operate under stringent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Rules of Engagement for the Use of Force (RoE) agreed with the appropriate Licensing Authority: equipment may only be used by personnel of the named PSC; and restrictions on the number and storage of firearms must be observed (i.e. all firearms must be stored in secure designated armouries when not in use). One licence was for the temporary export of an anti-riot shield for demonstration purposes, with the goods to remain under the exporter's control at all times before being returned to the UK. We assessed that there was not a clear risk that this item might be used for internal repression. Given that Sri Lanka is listed as a country of concern, in the FCOs 2011 Human Rights and Democracy Report, the Committees wish to know why SIELs for acoustic devices for riot control, body armour, combat shotguns, rifles, small arms ammunition and weapon sights were approved; why OIELs for assault rifles, body armour, components for assault rifles, military helmets, and small arms ammunition were approved; and why OITCLs for acoustic devices for riot control, assault rifles, body armour, combat shotguns, components for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for rifles, pistols, rifles, small arms ammunition, sniper rifles, weapon night sights and weapon sights were issued? The licence for export of equipment employing cryptography was for equipment destined for civil end use in providing 3G mobile services. Therefore, there were no Criteria concerns. All the other licences under reference were granted for equipment to be used by private security companies for anti-piracy activities. Due to the increase in armed piracy covering an area from the Gulf of Aden to the East Coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean, private security companies (PSCs) are being asked to

provide armed guards by their clients to enable commercial vessels to operate safely in these areas. Licences for weapons, ammunition and protective equipment for anti-piracy applications are considered thoroughly against Criteria 1, 2 & 7. PSCs require open licences to give them the flexibility to respond quickly to a request for an armed presence on vessels. The supply of such anti-piracy equipment will only be authorised under an open licence if the following strict conditions are met: activity is limited to vessels which are registered to a Flag State; the PSC must have signed up to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers and operate under stringent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Rules of Engagement for the Use of Force (RoE) agreed with the appropriate Licensing Authority; equipment may only be used by personnel of the named PSC; and restrictions on the number and storage of firearms must be observed (i.e. all firearms must be stored in secure designated armouries when not in use). Posted by Thavam