 |
|
| Up-to-the-minute perspectives on defence, security and peace issues from and for policy makers and opinion leaders. |
|
By Nigel Green
The controversial issue of British companies supplying the Israeli armed forces during the Gaza conflict has been raised in Parliament.
More than 1,000 people have now been killed since the Israelis invaded the Palestinian enclave in December.
The possible use of British technology in the conflict has been discussed at a meeting of the Committee on Arms Export Controls.
Among the issues debated was the supply of heads-up display units, made by British companies and fitted into F16s and Apache helicopters, supplied by the US to Israel.
The Economic and Business Minister Ian Pearson told the committee no applications for heads of display units been granted since 2002 and there was no clear evidence that UK exports had been used in Gaza.
Mr Pearson told fellow MPs that, from April, light weapons would come under extra-territorial controls.
However, any further proposals would be based on discussions with the non-governmental organizations and the defence industry, although the Government would make a decision if consensus could not be achieved.
The Minister said the UK had refused a number of applications to Israel over the years, although he stressed that decisions were made on a case-by-case basis.
Questioned about substantial increases in exports to Israel and suggestions that this contributed to the conflict, the Minister disagreed cautioning against 'dramatising' the conflict.
Future licensing decisions would depend on how previous exports had been used, said Mr Pearson.
Liberal Democrat MP, Malcolm Bruce, said it was not clear what equipment had been used during the crisis and further investigation was needed.
Mr Pearson agreed to inform the committee about the information the department received on which exports from the UK had been involved in the conflict.
Conservative MP, Sir John Stanley, raised the issue of UK-licensed equipment being made overseas.
However, Mr Pearson said attempting to control companies overseas was not legally-possible and UK laws could be easily bypassed.
Latest from defenseindustrialbase.blogspot.com
- The aircraft carrier debate & Australia moving 500 miles Westwards: Plus-ca-change
- Editorial: Comment on the Guardian article, "Carriers without Harriers: budget cuts leave MoD with jump jet-shaped hole"
- Editorial: Commentary on the unveiling of SDSR Resource outcomes
- Editorial: Comment on Robert Preston blog 'What a Carrier-on!'
- Editorial: Termination of the UK Defence Training Review (DTR) - Justice belatedly served
Follow Us
Defence Blogs
Visitors
Cookies
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Defence Viewpoints website. However, if you would like to, you can modify your browser so that it notifies you when cookies are sent to it or you can refuse cookies altogether. You can also delete cookies that have already been set. You may wish to visit www.aboutcookies.org which contains comprehensive information on how to do this on a wide variety of desktop browsers. Please note that you will lose some features and functionality on this website if you choose to disable cookies. For example, you may not be able to link into our Twitter feed, which gives up to the minute perspectives on defence and security matters.
UKDF Defence Viewpoints is intended as a forum for political discussion and debate on security, defence, peace and strategic issues. The views of authors are theirs alone, and publication of them here should not be interpreted as an endorsement by the U K Defence Forum, which holds no views of its own, or any of its associates. We are grateful to thinktanks, academics and publications for permission to reproduce their material. Copyright remains with original authors even when anonymous.
Designed by:
