British government faces several difficult questions over what it knew after Riyadh confirms use of munitions in Yemen

The UK and Saudi Arabia claimed they not have broken the law after the Saudi government, under pressure from the Guardian, finally confirmed that it has used British-supplied cluster munitions in Yemen. Technically that may be correct, but even if no law has been broken, it appears there has either been a breach of trust between the two governments or between British ministers and parliament.



Since May, British ministers have denied that UK cluster munitions have been used in Yemen, largely basing this assessment on assurances they claim to have received from the Saudi government.

But the Saudis have admitted using British cluster weapons, albeit outside civilian areas and in line with international humanitarian law of proportionality.

The question now arises, for how long did the British government know this, and was it was given false assurances by the Saudi government about their use, which would raise questions about the degree to which Saudi Arabia can be considered a reliable security partner.

After all, the allegations that UK-supplied weapons had been used by the Saudis were first made in May and for eight months there have been denials and obfuscation. On the face of it either ministers misled parliament or the Saudis misled the Ministry of Defence.

Given the highly complex, secretive and sensitive – and for the UK, profitable – relationship between the two countries, neither outcome is palatable.

This will have political consequences on 13 January when MPs will be asked to vote on whether arms sales to Saudi Arabia should be suspended. It will not be a comfortable debate.

The British government’s position was that it stopped supplying cluster munitions in 1989. In 2008, the UK signed up to the convention on cluster munitions, which prohibits the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of the weapons.

In May, facing allegations from Amnesty International that cluster munitions had been used by the Saudis, the then defence minister Philip Dunne told MPs: “Based on all the information available to us, including sensitive coalition operational reporting, we assess that no UK-supplied cluster weapons have been used and no UK-supplied aircraft have been involved in the use of UK cluster weapons in the current conflict in Yemen.”

He added: “The United Kingdom last provided BL755 cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia nearly 30 years ago. The final delivery was in 1989. We ratified the convention on cluster munitions on 4 May 2010 and we no longer supply, maintain or support these weapons. We have not done so since we signed the convention in 2008.” On this basis, the UK had not acted illegally.

In his statement, Dunne provided a get-out clause, saying the UK government was seeking “fresh assurances” from the Saudis on the issue, a line that has been repeated several times by ministers.

Dunne added: “If we find any evidence, we will pass it on to the committees on arms export controls.” No such evidence, until Monday, had been given to parliament.

In October, ITV raised the issue, building on Amnesty’s previous investigatory work by publishing photographic evidence of what appeared to be recently used British-made cluster munitions in Yemen.

The evidence was provided by a Houthi fighter in the civil war who said the pictures were taken in March in the frontline region of Baqim, near the Saudi border. Metadata on the photographs analysed by ITV supported his account.

An independent munitions expert also identified the bombs as British-made IBL755s.

In response, Brig Gen Ahmed Asiri of the Saudi military said: “There is manipulation in these photos used because they forget that in 2009, we fought these militias and we used this kind [of weapon] to protect our border, but not to use it in civilian areas.

“This is manipulation. This is what we face in the media; people manipulate these kinds of photos. If we used it, we would say we used it ... Why would we deny it?”



Shortly before the ITV report and subsequent Saudi denial, the business, innovation and skills select committee and the international development select committee published a report urging the British government to speed up its inquiries into what the Saudis knew.

“We do not believe that the UK government can meet its obligations under the convention on cluster munitions by relying on assurances from the Saudis,” the report said. “We recommend that the MoD carry out its own investigation into the purported use by the coalition forces of a UK-supplied cluster bomb, further to evidence found in Yemen.

“We also recommend that the government, as a signatory to the convention on cluster munitions, set out the steps it has taken not only to make sure UK-supplied aircraft and UK personnel are not in any way implicated in the use or deployment of these weapons, which is prohibited under the convention, but also the steps it has taken to stop Saudi Arabia from using cluster munitions.”

In December, the government responded by sidestepping the recommendation to launch its own inquiry.

“Responsibility for the maintenance of the delivered munitions has always rested with the Royal Saudi air force (RSAF), but contractor manpower support for the handling and storage of BL755 munitions was withdrawn at the same time. UK personnel have not loaded weapons of any type for Saudi-led coalition operational sorties in Yemen,” it said.

In a letter dated 3 November to the Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, the Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood may have been preparing the ground for an acknowledgement that the Saudis used cluster munitions by saying it was not illegal.

“The UK maintains the view that cluster munitions are not prima facie illegal and can be used in compliance with international law by states that are not party to the convention … provided that they are used in a manner that is compatible with international humanitarian law, including distinction, proportionality and the obligation to take all feasible precautions,” he wrote.

The government’s bona fides in this issue matter. It is facing a court case next month brought by the Campaign Against Arms trade, but not joined by other human rights groups, about the legality of the UK’s broader policy on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, in which cluster munitions may form additional evidence. Case law about the extent to which a state can be responsible for aiding another in conflict, where the assisted state has been undertaking wrongful acts, is rapidly developing. The degree of knowledge of the assisting state as to the actions of the assisted state is highly germane in such cases.

So the nature of the security relationship between the UK and the kingdom, particularly the degree to which Britain has influence over Riyadh’s conduct of the war in Yemen, is also at stake.

The UK claims it is not involved in Saudi targeting in Yemen, and merely provides training, and post bombing battle damage assessment. Unfortunately in this hall of mirrors, such assurances have just lost much of their currency.