This is an incoherent rant rather than a thoughtful analysis of how governments approach the many conflicts in the Near East. It's not unlike the sort of nonsense on the subject spewed out by right-wing sites.
Example: You said the UK blocked efforts for a UN inquiry on civilian death in Yemen. Yes, that is true. But you omit the fact that the UN HRC unanimously adopted a resolution in September of last year to fund and support an international team of investigators to go to Yemen to investigate violations in the conflict by both sides. The resolution was a compromise but it was the only resolution that all parties in the conflict agreed to.
I see this tactic used on Fox News all the time. It's a misleading half-truth which, when juxtaposed with other relevant facts, looks a lot like a lie. This column is full of them.
The UK ranks 6th not 2nd in international arms sales for the period from 2012-2016 (SIPRI.org). The ranking doesn't really change in 2017. The widely circulated DTI report you cite (which was basically a sales pitch for a UK arms fair) is a rough estimate that doesn't account for other countries dramatically increasing their exports.
The fact is that I am generally sympathetic to your frustrations. I have lived and worked in the Middle East and have lost friends in two of the conflicts you mentioned (one was an aid worker and another a film maker). You quite rightly cite arms sales to the region as a factor in exacerbating the probability an severity of conflict in the region. So what happens when a country's main purveyor of arms ceases sales for humanitarian reasons? The US halted support for Egyptian arms during the Arab Spring revolt. Since then, Egypt has aggressively diversified its source of arms and security support and dramatically reduced its dependence on the US to reduce their vulnerability to political pressure. Russia,, China, and France are much less likely to get in a twist over human rights abuses and war crimes perpetrated by their customers than the US or UK.
There is enough one-eyed and blurred analysis out there already. Putting out more doesn't help anyone.
This is an incoherent rant rather than a thoughtful analysis of how governments approach the many conflicts in the Near East. It's not unlike the sort of nonsense on the subject spewed out by right-wing sites.
Example: You said the UK blocked efforts for a UN inquiry on civilian death in Yemen. Yes, that is true. But you omit the fact that the UN HRC unanimously adopted a resolution in September of last year to fund and support an international team of investigators to go to Yemen to investigate violations in the conflict by both sides. The resolution was a compromise but it was the only resolution that all parties in the conflict agreed to.
I see this tactic used on Fox News all the time. It's a misleading half-truth which, when juxtaposed with other relevant facts, looks a lot like a lie. This column is full of them.
The UK ranks 6th not 2nd in international arms sales for the period from 2012-2016 (SIPRI.org). The ranking doesn't really change in 2017. The widely circulated DTI report you cite (which was basically a sales pitch for a UK arms fair) is a rough estimate that doesn't account for other countries dramatically increasing their exports.
The fact is that I am generally sympathetic to your frustrations. I have lived and worked in the Middle East and have lost friends in two of the conflicts you mentioned (one was an aid worker and another a film maker). You quite rightly cite arms sales to the region as a factor in exacerbating the probability an severity of conflict in the region. So what happens when a country's main purveyor of arms ceases sales for humanitarian reasons? The US halted support for Egyptian arms during the Arab Spring revolt. Since then, Egypt has aggressively diversified its source of arms and security support and dramatically reduced its dependence on the US to reduce their vulnerability to political pressure. Russia,, China, and France are much less likely to get in a twist over human rights abuses and war crimes perpetrated by their customers than the US or UK.
There is enough one-eyed and blurred analysis out there already. Putting out more doesn't help anyone.