8/4/2019 Business as Usual? Arms, Surveillance and Arab Dictatorships | The Big Issue in the North

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/business-as-usual-arms-surveillance-and-arab-dictatorships-the-big-issue 1/2

1712-18 SEPTEMBER 2011· THEBIG ISSUEIN THE NORTH

A view of a house shelledby pro-Gaddafi forces inOm El Khanfousa on 7September 2011. Thehouse was liberated byNational TransitionalCouncil fighters last week.Photo: Reuters/Esam Al-Fetori

With ongoing battles in Libya, the true effects of the

Arab Spring are yet to be concluded. However, theuprisings have revealed how many UK companies wereinvolved in supplying surveillance technology and armsto the authoritarian regimes. Ryan Gallagherinvestigates the implications of this businessrelationship

A wave of revolution across the Middle East andnorth Africa this year has left tyrants and dictatorsclinging to the power they once took for granted.Citizens of countries including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya,Bahrain and Syria have taken to the streets and insome cases fought and died in an attempt tooverthrow their rulers.

But as Britain has offered its support to thenewfound freedom fighters, some have madeaccusations of hypocrisy. After all, like many otherwestern nations, the UK has been doing business withauthoritarian regimes in the Arab world for decades.

Little is known about the true extent of therelationship the UK has maintained with dictatorsand autocrats across the region. However, as the oldregimes crumble, details have begun to slowlyemerge. Last week the organisation Human RightsWatch released documents it discovered in Libya,revealing that UK intelligence agency MI6collaborated with Muammar Gaddafi’s securityservices to transport terror suspects to Libya forinterrogation, where they were allegedly subjected to

torture. MI6 continues to deny involvement, thoughthe secret documents paint an altogether different

picture.Amid the uprising in Egypt earlier this year,protesters made a similarly shocking find. Afterransacking government intelligence agencyheadquarters in Cairo, they unearthed hiddenunderground interrogation cells, evidence of torture,and a stockpile of documents that outlined agovernment programme of industrial-scale masssurveillance. Most controversially, among the manyfiles was a letter from an English, Andover-based IT-security company, dated June 2010, offering to sellEgyptian authorities spy technology that wouldenable them to intercept dissidents’ emails, recordaudio and video chats, and take copies of computerhard drives.

The company, Gamma International, denies that itsold the technology, worth over £250,000, to theEgyptian authorities. “Gamma complies in all itsdealings with all applicable UK laws andregulations,” it said in a statement. “Gamma did notsupply to Egypt but in any event it would not beappropriate for Gamma to make public details of itstransactions with any customer.”

Such technology is used by governments aroundthe world, including the UK. However, its use in mostwestern countries is strictly regulated and can only beused when authorities have grounds to believe itcould help prevent or detect a crime. Authoritarianregimes in the Middle East do not have the sameregulatory framework, though this does not restrictwestern firms such as Gamma International fromselling them their products.

Since the discovery of such documents, a group of concerned European politicians has taken action. Six

Businessas usual?

BITN 893_17,18 (arabspring):BITN 772_20,21 (orbit) 9/9/11 10:47 Page 15

8/4/2019 Business as Usual? Arms, Surveillance and Arab Dictatorships | The Big Issue in the North

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/business-as-usual-arms-surveillance-and-arab-dictatorships-the-big-issue 2/2

MEPs including Baroness Sarah Ludford, LiberalDemocrat MEP for London, made a joint request tothe EU’s head of foreign policy calling for a decisionon whether European companies contributed tohuman rights violations in countries includingTunisia, Bahrain, Egypt and Syria.

“I don’t know whether the EU has paid sufficientattention to this,” Ludford told The Big Issue in theNorth. “It raises very important issues about whetherexport of surveillance equipment from the EU is

being used in repression and human rights abuses.The law is a mess; it’s not being properly orrigorously applied and that needs to happenalongside responsible companies that check what theultimate use [of the technology] is going to be.”

According to Dr Andrea Teti, a specialist ininternational security at Aberdeen University, it is notpossible to stop surveillance systems from being usedfor repressive purposes unless firm new legislation isimplemented, controlling the countries to which it isexported.

“Just because the physical harm comes onceremoved from this particular technology, it doesn’tmean we shouldn’t be concerned about it,” he said.“If there are safety implications for people in terms of their human rights or physical safety, then we shouldhave some kind of controls. The problem that wehave in the west is that in most cases thoseregulations are quite poor when it comes to exportlicensing. The onus is definitely on us to deal with

that side of things – and we haven’t done so.”Through the course of the Arab Spring the murkyworld of mass surveillance has undoubtedly beenexposed by the fracture of once intensely secretiveregimes. But important questions have also beenraised about the UK’s role in arming state forcesresponsible for brutally repressing protests across theregion.

In February the Foreign Office said it wasconducting an “immediate and rapid review” of allUK arms export licences to affected countries.Between February and June, however, arms sales toLibya, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia totalled over £30m –30 per cent more than for the same period in 2010.Weapons exported included sniper rifles, shotgunsand submachine guns, according to an investigation

by The Times.The government has since blocked the export of

ARAB SPRING

“Just becausethe physical harm comesonce removed from this

particular technology, it doesn’t mean

we shouldn’t be concerned about it”

THEBIG ISSUEIN THE NORTH· 12-18 SEPTEMBER 201118

arms to Libya and Syria as part of an EU embargo,and also revoked a number of military export licencesto Bahrain. But Oliver Sprague, director of humanrights group Amnesty International’s UK arms controlprogramme, said it was a case of “closing the stabledoor after the horse had bolted,” and called for tighterregulations.

“Countries are entitled to purchase weaponry forlegitimate defence and policing purposes, but was itever remotely sensible for the UK to sell weapons andcrowd-control equipment to countries like Gaddafi’sLibya?” he said. “The key question is - are ourexisting risk-assessment procedures tight enoughwhen it comes to sending arms overseas? The lessonof countries like Bahrain and Libya is that they’re notand we could still end up sending weapons to humanrights abusers in the future.”

The Foreign Office said that there was no evidenceof any misuse of controlled military goods exportedfrom the United Kingdom, though admitted, “furtherwork is needed on how we operate certain aspects of the controls.”

A spokesperson said,“We do not export equipmentwhere there is a clear risk it could be used for internalrepression. Respect for human rights andfundamental freedoms are mandatory considerationsfor all export licence applications. HMG [HerMajesty’s Government] reacted quickly to the eventsin the Middle East and we reviewed licences andmoved swiftly to revoke where they were no longer in

the line with the criteria.”

A Libyan rebel standsguard near the entrance ofRas Lanuf on 27 August

2011. Photo: Reuters/EsamAl-Fetori

Exports and the lawThere has been renewed scrutiny of the UK’s arms-export rulessince the breakout of the Arab Spring. Embargoes are currently inforce preventing exports to Libya and Syria, but the UK hascontinued to consider licenses on a case-by-case basis to othercountries in the region, including Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia,prompting criticism from human rights groups.

When considering an application to export arms, thegovernment is bound by the Universal Declaration on HumanRights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.Additionally, as part of its own criteria, it says it will:

‘Not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that theproposed export might be used for internal repression.’

BITN 893_17,18 (arabspring):BITN 772_20,21 (orbit) 9/9/11 10:47 Page 16