human rights, UK Politics, World Politics

The Tories’ Saudi arms trade is killing innocent civilians

bae-systems-david-cameron-arms-deal-saudi-arabia-2

With a regular dosage of stories on the destructive consequences of Western interventions in the Middle East recently, it seems that civilian deaths have become something normal. A plethora of extremist groups has taken global governments of late by storm, provoking drastic defence measures involving all the superpowers. Dangerously dispersed power amongst tyrannical factions like Islamic State and al-Qaeda has emphasised the strong need for protecting the global community. But the airstrikes and artillery supported and, in some cases, provided by states like the United Kingdom, is having a detrimental effect on innocent civilians.

Since Saudi Arabia’s recent intervention in the tempestuous Yemeni civil war between rebel and president forces, the United Kingdom has rabidly supported its destructive defence policy. David Cameron’s conservative-led government has been pivotal in building Saudi military strength, rather controversially. Whilst the marginalising and weakening of barbaric terrorists is essential, coining the UK’s operations wholly as ‘efforts’ would be a huge overstatement.

Whilst the Saudi defence tactics supported by the UK have had successes, their impact has fostered desolation, death and detriment on a vast scale. Our terrorist methodology is becoming similar to that of medieval times. It was reported in April that a cumulative $6bn has been spent on UK arms production for Saudi Arabian use since the Saudis’ entry into the conflict.  David Cameron has scandalously authorised the provision of astronomical quantities of weaponry produced by UK companies for Saudi Arabian use. It is our government which is in control of the Yemeni people’s fate, and it is our leaders who are choosing not to provide constructive humanitarian aid.

Until very recently, the damaging civilian impact of Britain’s violent strategy has been less reported. Whilst combatting extremism to an extent, civilisations are becoming obliterated, children have been displaced, and essential services have ceased to function. Easy come, easy go. Towns and villages are coming to a standstill, and vital support organisations’ hospitals are failing to cope. David Cameron, alongside an army of MPs, is the pioneer of a crusade massacring millions at the expense of erasing only a handful of brutes. It was estimated a few months ago by the World Health Organisation that around 6,400 civilians with no militant motivation have been killed by western weaponry. Further to this, around 2.5m people have had their livelihoods stripped of them, bearing no possessions nor a roof over their head. Médecins Sans Frontières have had countless facilities reduced to rubble. Instead of bringing political stability, the Tory administration are nurturing a mammoth humanitarian crisis across Yemen. How can our leaders stand by such brutality, which is damaging communities?

Akin to the actions of Tony Blair in regard to the pain of the Iraqi conflict, Cameron is in danger of committing atrocious war crimes. Many Westminster MPs have already condemned the government-supported attacks. This comes alongside criticism from organisations like the United Nations and pressure groups Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Our nation is defying vital human rights convention. Many innocents are having their livelihoods instantaneously stolen from them. Such criticism should be setting the alarm bells ringing. If Russia were collaborating with Saudi Arabia, orchestrating attacks such as those that the UK support, there would be international outcry. The Tories’ reprehensible hand in the arms trade is thus the source of great hypocrisy and deceit.

Once again, the moral case has been outdone by the political and economic cases. The prospect of large sums of money from the Saudis is the true power supply of such careless warfare, as one British government inquiry termed it. Our government has proven that it is morally and politically weak. With growing pressure from US Secretary of State John Kerry, David Cameron and his Atlantic allies have chosen to play into the hands of just a few businesses rather than tread the moral high ground of stamping out such demoralising attacks. Large profits have triumphed over more attentive soft power, destroying the chances for dialogue and collective humanitarian action.

Perhaps in a couple of years, when the flame of the harmful Yemeni conflict dies, will a viable solution to the civil war be found. Hunger, poverty and ill health are continuing to prevail throughout the nation, thanks to British bombs. The United Nations is only 40% towards sourcing the $703m needed for reconstructing the Syrian nation, and it looks like the West would be reluctant to help after recent events.

We have to be hard on extremism, but it is clear that the United Kingdom’s interventions are just too much. The civilian loss is huge. Communities will never be the same. Detriment of this type has been felt before in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan, alongside a great deal of other regions. Where will be next? If our answer to extremism is blood and bombs, the world will fail to increase in political sustainability? Through the United Kingdom’s current methods for defeating such tyranny, terrorism will grow more commonplace, and our international relations will become more brittle. The Yemeni people need humanitarian support, and it is time that our approach focused on teamwork, peace, and sustainability.

Advertisements
Standard
World Politics

The UK’s hand in striking Daesh will become Cameron’s greatest regret

syria-push-out-terrorists

See this article published on Youth Journalism International.

Obliterated towns and villages, a quarter of a million civilian deaths, and young faces exposed to the barbaric atrocities of warfare. Unfortunately, these scenes of global dissonance are real for many Middle Eastern communities witnessing the rampage of Daesh. As the death toll increases, the extremists’ abominable threat to humanity must come to an end. However, destroying the moral high ground through airstrikes is surely no way to a peaceful global society.

Wednesday evening saw Prime Minister David Cameron and opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn lead British MPs into one of the most divisive votes of the decade. Westminster representatives voted 397 to 223 in favour of pursuing airstrikes on Daesh militants. As the richest terror organisation in the world, having yielded a gross income of over 2.9 billion US Dollars in recent years, this extremist pandemic must undeniably be fast terminated. However, the means by which infected Middle Eastern communities are inoculated against this political disease has proven to be a contentious issue amongst British voters. Yesterday evening’s decision, after an impassioned debate, showed that there is growing confidence in Syrian airstrikes amongst MPs, crushing the caliphate. However, after news of airstrikes during Thursday morning, a significant proportion of the electorate made its discontent known, after weeks of preceding protest.

The case for the use of weapons in order to deplete the influence of Daesh is blatantly flawed. Politicians have devilishly branded use of weapons as a quick fix to this new age of Islamist insurgency, wiping out key leaders and reducing the ability of forces. But the legacy of such intervention would have huge consequences, a truth which lurks behind Cameron’s façade of diplomatic strength.

2003 interventions against the similarly repulsive regime of Saddam Hussein still taint British society today. Haven’t our politicians noticed that an identical situation exists in comparing Iraqi invasions with possibilities in Syria today?  Iraqi intervention has, in the long run, meant more harm than safety, with retaliation coming at the expense of innocent civilian destruction. Many of our politicians, and albeit those of coalition nations, relax knowing that livelihoods of innocent civilians will be annihilated. Strategists claim that the latest technology can reduce destruction, but there is no guarantee that airstrikes won’t cause despair amongst guiltless individuals. An alarming 1.7 million were killed due to brutality of Western attacks in Iraq. Furthermore, over the first three years of intervention, almost a third of all deaths were deemed to be the result of Western forces. And twelve years on Iraqis are still subdued by the air of plight. Every day, civilians cast their eyes over the houses, schools and other institutions which once were, now reduced to rubble.

Mideast Jordan Syria

Questioning the legitimacy of this intervention is vital. A vast number of voters simply cannot see sense behind the UK Cabinet’s decision. Government for the people instead of with the people has never become more obvious. 66 of 218 Labour MPs sitting in the House of Commons voted in favour of airstrikes, whilst only 13% of the Labour party’s subscribed electorate supporters firmly supported such intervention. Values of social democracy which the Labour party claims to stand for have been challenged outright. Of course, democracy will always create losers, favouring the majority decision. However, the British government has wholly disregarded the views of its people in presiding over such a contentious issue. Pollster YouGov revealed slashed electorate support for airstrikes this morning with only a mere 48% in support of David Cameron’s Daesh policy. It is abhorrent that Labour members and, of course, Conservative government members, have disregarded the views of large numbers. There can surely be no clearer showcase of governmental bureaucracy as our elected representatives fail to act on opinions of the people.

There is simply no obvious equilibrium. Airstrikes would lead only to a very short-term gain, and long-lasting disparity.  The consequences of a smashed-up society are evidently too great for much of the British population to stomach. In aiming to defeat Daesh, the same dangerous legacy as that of Iraq will haunt us in coming years, and further terror attacks on our now vulnerable nation are imminent. Whilst intrusive, in these extreme circumstances, close surveillance tactics should be employed instead, amongst strategies in order to limit the presence of Daesh in our global community. The virtues of discussion, and not those of violent weapons, should be embraced by all. Dialogue can and should build bridges, leading citizens of all backgrounds into a more prosperous and peaceful humanity.

The Prime Minister’s vehement labelling of opponents to airstrikes as ‘terrorist sympathisers’ is unacceptable. Advocates of peace are those who retain the moral high ground, and those who promote the safe world which we all aspire to. David Cameron has removed the bandage of a wound which will continue to bleed for years to come. Global harmony has been pushed years further away, an unforgivable move.

Standard