Is David Lammy prioritising arms sales over human rights? With the UAE, it sure looks that way

From freebies to foreign policy, there seems to be a dangerous disconnect between what the Starmer government say and what they do.

A government for growth was said to be the number one priority – while those savers and spenders who fuel it are hit with tax hikes. A government that treads lighter on our lives was pledged – while more laws impacting everything from speech to employment are planned. A government of service was promised – while a government of freebies is emerging.

Perhaps we should cut Labour some slack. Certainly, they’ve had no practise in the governing game for half a generation. The big, domestic decisions on tax and spend are still to come. Cynics may find words and actions do start to align. But for foreign affairs – the policy area where much has already been said, and big decisions are already being taken under the slogan of “progressive realism” – the signs so far are mixed.

First there were relations with Israel. At the same time as mouthing support for the country’s right to defend itself, Labour have removed export licenses for some out of hundreds of military export items, while also pledging to uphold the International Criminal Court’s requested arrest warrants for the Israeli prime and defence ministers. This mix of messages and actions pleases no one.

Second, there was David Lammy’s Substack. The Foreign Secretary’s description in a blog post of Azerbaijan’s restoration of sovereignty over Karabakh from Armenia’s 30-year occupation as a “liberation” delighted the former and disturbed the latter. Neither country needed his accidental intervention that stands to insert unnecessary tensions into peace negotiations that Britain has long supported.

Third, there is Britain’s relations with the United Arab Emirates. For decades, successive UK governments have prioritised lucrative arms deals and investment opportunities over democratic values and human rights. This was, perhaps surprisingly, starting to change in the twilight Conservative years.

Vodafone’s partial sale to UAE-based e& caused the Conservative government real national security concerns. The Emirati state’s acquisition of a 14.6 per cent stake in the mobile network causes such apprehension that a national security committee was required to be established at Vodafone.

From assurances behind closed doors, ministers and parliamentarians became increasingly forthright that relations with the UAE should be reconsidered: so serious were issues of rights and potential interference that trade and investment should be made secondary, with rights and security instead the priority.

That was before the election. Now, with Labour installed we might expect this considerable policy shift to be continued, not least when Labour traditionally prides itself as a champion of human rights.

Yet so far, the signs suggest the opposite. A UK-Gulf Cooperation Council free trade deal, which was intentionally being made to tread water under the Tories, has now been re-prioritised by the new business secretary Jonathan Reynolds in an announcement last month.

Lammy’s first call to an Arab official was to UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Abdallah bin Zayed, raising questions about the new Government’s approach to addressing security and human rights concerns. The recent case of Matthew Croucher, a former Royal Marine detained in Dubai for months on questionable charges, underscores the real-world implications of prioritising diplomatic ties over human rights issues.

The UK government’s approach is further complicated by reports of suppressing criticism of the UAE’s role in arming the Rapid Support Forces militia in Sudan, accused of genocide in Darfur. This reluctance to confront the UAE over its regional actions raises questions about the UK’s commitment to human rights and international law.

Britain’s continued arms sales to the UAE, despite evidence of their use in conflicts with severe humanitarian consequences, have drawn criticism from human rights organizations. This ongoing military trade, worth billions annually, potentially implicates the UK in breaches of international humanitarian law.

The new government has an opportunity to reset UK-UAE relations. To take the starting point of the more critical position bequeathed by the Conservatives to its natural conclusion would involve publicly calling out human rights abuses, making future arms sales and trade deals contingent on tangible improvements in the UAE’s human rights record, supporting international investigations into allegations of torture and arbitrary detention, while engaging more actively with UAE civil society and human rights defenders.

But this not what Labour are doing. Instead, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement with his Emirati counterpart stating the two countries would “build on deep historic ties to develop a forward-looking partnership, including strengthening bilateral trade and investment ties”. Extraordinarily, they also pledged “close coordination on regional security and humanitarian issues”.

Words like “progressive realism” will be proven to be just words if this continues. Just as in other areas, there is a dangerous disconnect appearing between what Labour say and what they do in relations with other countries. This is not what the party’s supporters – nor the public – was expecting or wanting.

Ben Keith is a leading barrister in international law, extradition, immigration and human rights. He has particular expertise and experience in high-profile human rights cases involving the UAE