War profiteers accused of war crimes

This 11 September 2019 video from London, England says about itself:

Stop DSEI 2019: Borders and Migration

The same companies on show at the arms fair, who are profiting from war and oppression are also lobbying for, and then winning contracts to build, more militarised borders. This was a day of action to say #StopDSEI #noborders #nohumanisillegal.

From daily News Line in Britain:

Companies at London Arms Fair supplying countries accused of committing ‘war crimes’

THE WORLD’S biggest arms companies have set up shop at Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEI), one of the world’s largest arms fairs, taking place in London between 10-13 September.

To coincide with this, Amnesty International contacted 22 arms companies and asked them to explain how they meet their responsibilities to respect human rights under internationally recognised standards.

Amnesty alleges many of the companies investigated supply arms to countries accused of committing ‘war crimes’ and serious human rights violations, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

…

None of the companies that responded was able to adequately explain how they meet their human rights responsibilities and demonstrate proper due diligence, and 14 did not respond at all.

‘The role of arms companies in deadly conflicts marred by serious human rights violations has been the elephant in the room for too long’, said Patrick Wilcken, Arms Control Researcher at Amnesty International.

‘While states like the UK are, rightly, being pursued in the courts for their reckless arms deals, the corporations who profit from supplying arms to countries involved in these conflicts have largely escaped scrutiny.

‘Not one of the companies we contacted was able to demonstrate adequate human rights due diligence.

‘Not only does this show an alarming indifference to the human cost of their business, it could potentially expose these companies and their bosses to prosecution for complicity in war crimes.’

Amnesty investigated 22 arms companies from 11 countries, including Airbus (Netherlands), Arquus (France), Boeing (USA), BAE Systems (UK), Leonardo (Italy), Lockheed Martin (UK), Raytheon (USA), Rosoboronexport (Russia), Thales (France), and Zastava (Serbia).

While the human rights obligations of states to regulate the international arms trade are now clearly defined under the Arms Trade Treaty and regional and domestic legislation, the crucial role of companies in the supply of military goods and services is often overlooked, despite the often inherently dangerous nature of its business and products.

Arms for use in Yemen

Among those exhibiting are companies who have made millions from supplying arms and services for the Saudi Arabia/UAE-led coalition’s campaign in Yemen.

BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, among others, have been integral to the coalition effort, arming a fleet of combat aircraft that has repeatedly struck civilian objects, including homes, schools, hospitals and marketplaces.

None of these companies explained what human rights due diligence they had undertaken to assess and address the risks of supplying arms and services to the Saudi Arabia/UAE-led coalition.

In one instance Amnesty International traced a bomb remnant from the site of an airstrike in Sana’a, which killed six children and their parents in 2017, to Raytheon’s manufacturing plant in Arizona.

When Amnesty International asked Raytheon what steps it had taken to investigate and respond to this incident the company issued the following response: ‘Due to legal constraints, customer relations issues… Raytheon does not provide information on our products, customers or operational issues.’

Raytheon added that prior to export, military and security equipment is ‘subject to a multifaceted review by the US Department of State, Department of Defence and Congress’.

Outsourcing responsibility

‘Most companies who responded to Amnesty International made the argument that responsibility for human rights assessments lies with their home states through the arms licensing process,’ said Patrick Wilcken.

‘But government regulation does not exempt companies – no matter what sector they operate in – from carrying out their own human rights due diligence.

‘Hiding behind governments is not good enough – especially when licence decisions have been shown to be flawed, and governments issuing licences are themselves being challenged over their role in war crimes and other violations.’

BAE Systems described Amnesty International’s conclusions as ‘false and misleading’, adding that BAE Systems applies ‘measured and appropriate policy and process of its own in respect of compliance with laws and regulation’ through its Product Trading Policy.

However, when questioned on human rights due diligence in relation to the company’s trade with Saudi Arabia, the company replied: ‘Our activities in Saudi Arabia are subject to UK government approval and oversight.’

The company Leonardo said that Amnesty International’s conclusions were ‘not completely fair’ and that the company did carry out human rights due diligence which went beyond compliance with national licensing laws and regulations.

However it did not explain how these policies work in practice in concrete situations – for example, in exports to the Saudi Arabia/UAE coalition for use in the Yemen conflict.

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), as unanimously endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, all companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and, to meet that responsibility, undertake human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address both their potential and actual human rights impacts.

Amnesty said: ‘In relation to the defence sector, this means companies must assess and address human rights risks and abuses arising in all aspects of their business, including how clients such as national armies and police forces use their weaponry and related services.

‘The primary purpose of due diligence is to avoid causing or contributing to human rights abuses.

‘Therefore if a company cannot prevent or adequately mitigate adverse human rights impacts, it should avoid or cease supplying the relevant arms and related services.

‘These responsibilities exist over and above compliance with national laws and regulations – such as state licensing systems – aimed at protecting human rights.

‘Failure to carry out adequate human rights due diligence increases both reputational and legal risks for an industry that supplies high-risk products to dangerous environments.

‘Legal concepts of “corporate complicity” in and the “aiding and abetting” of international crimes continue to evolve and could in the future apply to arms companies that continue supplying weapons in the knowledge that they may be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law.’