This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/05/david-cameron-gulf-trip-editorial

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
David Cameron's Gulf trip: our man in Manama David Cameron's Gulf trip: our man in Manama
(about 13 hours later)
David Cameron has chosen about the worse possible time to flog Typhoon jets to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia. The Arab spring has come knocking on the doors of two of these autocracies and there is a Saudi-managed counter-offensive to stop the dreaded D-word – democracy – from spreading further. The Gulf states are attempting to criminalise the very voices that Britain, the US and EU have recognised as legitimate in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria. David Cameron has chosen about the worst possible time to flog Typhoon jets to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia. The Arab spring has come knocking on the doors of two of these autocracies and there is a Saudi-managed counter-offensive to stop the dreaded D-word – democracy – from spreading further. The Gulf states are attempting to criminalise the very voices that Britain, the US and EU have recognised as legitimate in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and now Syria.
While Saudi Arabia is funding the insurgency in Syria, it is doing everything it can behind the scenes to prevent the same thing breaking out at home. In Egypt, it is trying to undermine the presidency of Mohamed Morsi by funding opposition groups, secular and Islamist, while trouble with Bedouin tribesmen rages in the Sinai. In Qatar, it pressured the emir to remove the independent head of al-Jazeera, whose live coverage played a key role in Tunisia and Tahrir Square. In the UAE, it is behind calls to label the Muslim Brotherhood as fifth columnists, the unseen hand guiding growing domestic protest. For Britain to now find itself on both sides of the barricades at once – backing the democratic revolution once it has happened, but selling arms to the autocracies that are fighting tooth and nail to stop it spreading – is a monumental and venal folly.While Saudi Arabia is funding the insurgency in Syria, it is doing everything it can behind the scenes to prevent the same thing breaking out at home. In Egypt, it is trying to undermine the presidency of Mohamed Morsi by funding opposition groups, secular and Islamist, while trouble with Bedouin tribesmen rages in the Sinai. In Qatar, it pressured the emir to remove the independent head of al-Jazeera, whose live coverage played a key role in Tunisia and Tahrir Square. In the UAE, it is behind calls to label the Muslim Brotherhood as fifth columnists, the unseen hand guiding growing domestic protest. For Britain to now find itself on both sides of the barricades at once – backing the democratic revolution once it has happened, but selling arms to the autocracies that are fighting tooth and nail to stop it spreading – is a monumental and venal folly.
It is folly for pragmatic reasons. If these regimes collapse, what betting would anyone give on the new management honouring the defence contracts of the old regime? Did any contract we made with Iran survive the Shah's fall? It is folly for regional reasons. After this trip, what quarrel could Britain possibly have with Vladimir Putin over his supply of refurbished helicopters and sophisticated air defence equipment to Bashar al-Assad, if the value of defence and security exports by UK firms in 2011 (£8bn) represented a higher percentage of the world defence market than that achieved either by Russia or France? Ah, the argument goes, we are different. Britain has criteria. It can revoke export licences on the grounds that the arms sold could be used to facililate internal repression or that they might provoke regional conflicts.It is folly for pragmatic reasons. If these regimes collapse, what betting would anyone give on the new management honouring the defence contracts of the old regime? Did any contract we made with Iran survive the Shah's fall? It is folly for regional reasons. After this trip, what quarrel could Britain possibly have with Vladimir Putin over his supply of refurbished helicopters and sophisticated air defence equipment to Bashar al-Assad, if the value of defence and security exports by UK firms in 2011 (£8bn) represented a higher percentage of the world defence market than that achieved either by Russia or France? Ah, the argument goes, we are different. Britain has criteria. It can revoke export licences on the grounds that the arms sold could be used to facililate internal repression or that they might provoke regional conflicts.
Indeed, the recent troubled history of export licences to countries in the throes of the Arab spring does not bode well for Mr Cameron. Britain has been forced to revoke 158 export licences since 1 January 2011 as a result of the Arab spring. The committees on arms export controls (CAEC) concluded that while the revocation of such an unprecedented number of licences was welcome, the scale of the revocations was "demonstrable evidence that the initial judgments to approve the applications were flawed". The foreign affairs committee backed CAEC's report by saying the previous government misjudged the risk that arms approved for export to authoritarian countries in north Africa and the Middle East might be used for internal repression. If that was true then, how much truer is it now in the Gulf? And whose judgment should be we be more inclined to trust – Mr Cameron's or the FAC, whose announcement of an investigation into Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain was received by the Saudi ambassador to London as an "insult"?Indeed, the recent troubled history of export licences to countries in the throes of the Arab spring does not bode well for Mr Cameron. Britain has been forced to revoke 158 export licences since 1 January 2011 as a result of the Arab spring. The committees on arms export controls (CAEC) concluded that while the revocation of such an unprecedented number of licences was welcome, the scale of the revocations was "demonstrable evidence that the initial judgments to approve the applications were flawed". The foreign affairs committee backed CAEC's report by saying the previous government misjudged the risk that arms approved for export to authoritarian countries in north Africa and the Middle East might be used for internal repression. If that was true then, how much truer is it now in the Gulf? And whose judgment should be we be more inclined to trust – Mr Cameron's or the FAC, whose announcement of an investigation into Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain was received by the Saudi ambassador to London as an "insult"?
The future course of the Arab spring is by no means predestined and there are degrees of autocracy and state violence. As Human Rights Watch's submission to the FAC made clear, Bahrain is the most obvious example of Britain's double standards. But we know that even if these fragile and frightened autocracies care not one jot for the opinion of their citizens, they are hypersensitive about their image and holdings abroad. Mr Cameron not only fails to use this lever, he is attempting to disconnect it. If the bottom line of Mr Cameron's trip is securing British jobs and contracts, he should admit that under his watch the interests of Britain's military-industrial complex trump British values. This is how a prime minister abroad finds himself subverting, sotto voce, the work of his parliament, rather than representing and supporting it.The future course of the Arab spring is by no means predestined and there are degrees of autocracy and state violence. As Human Rights Watch's submission to the FAC made clear, Bahrain is the most obvious example of Britain's double standards. But we know that even if these fragile and frightened autocracies care not one jot for the opinion of their citizens, they are hypersensitive about their image and holdings abroad. Mr Cameron not only fails to use this lever, he is attempting to disconnect it. If the bottom line of Mr Cameron's trip is securing British jobs and contracts, he should admit that under his watch the interests of Britain's military-industrial complex trump British values. This is how a prime minister abroad finds himself subverting, sotto voce, the work of his parliament, rather than representing and supporting it.