UK firms make huge profits on arm sales to Saudi Arabia

British companies selling weapons have earned hundreds of millions of dollars by selling arms to Saudi Arabia during the ongoing war in Yemen, a report says.

New estimates released by the children's charity War Child reveal that since the Saudi-led coalition began its intervention in Yemen, UK weapons companies including BAE systems and Raytheon have earned revenues exceeding $8bn from dealings with Saudi Arabia, generating profits estimated at almost $775m.

The UK government, however, has received just $40m of corporate tax, the report said.

"This tax revenue figure is pitifully small and comes at the cost of thousands of children who have been killed, injured, and starved by a conflict that this trade has helped sustain," the report said.

A Saudi-led military coalition was formed in March 2015 to support Yemen's internationally recognised government in fighting the Iran-backed Houthi rebels.

READ MORE: UK activists demand end to Saudi Arabia, UAE arms sales

The conflict has killed more than 10,000 people and has injured more than 40,000 to date, according to the United Nations.

In the past three years, the UK has approved arms export licences to Saudi Arabia worth $4.7bn, including the Tornado aircraft, which is partially manufactured by BAE systems, vehicles and tanks, including BAE's Tactica armoured vehicles valued at $580,000 and $1.48bn worth of grenades missiles and bombs, including Raytheon's Paveway IV bombs.

Since then, Saudi Arabia has been involved both directly and indirectly in conflict in Yemen, where it faces accusations of war crimes and other abuses.

The report argues that the policy of selling arms to Saudi Arabia is financially inconsistent and does not "represent good value for money".

The UK reaps a minimal tax take from arms sales in Saudi Arabia - just $18m in corporation tax in 2016 - yet, the will spend $187m in humanitarian aid to Yemen, according to War Child.

"The arms trade directly counteracts much of the benefits Yemeni children and other civilians might expect to receive from the provision of aid, undermining the Department for International Development's policy of getting value for money from the aid it commits," the report said.

In July, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) lost a high-profile case calling for UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia to be stopped over humanitarian concerns.

The High Court ruled exports would continue granting weapons-export licences to Saudi Arabia despite widespread concern over the civilian death toll of its campaign in Yemen.

Days after the court ruling, the British government licensed $321m worth of arms sales to Saudi Arabia in the six months after an air strike by the Saudi-led coalition killed 140 people at a funeral in the Yemeni capital Sanaa.

The country is also facing a health crisis, with more than 2,000 people having died from cholera since April, more than half a million people infected, and another 600,000 expected to contract the infection this year.

Aid groups have also accused Saudi Arabia of blocking needed assistance and goods from areas that are most in need.

Saudi Arabia and its allies have said they aim to prevent arms shipments to the Houthis, but aid groups say the curbs have deepened the suffering of millions.

The coalition has been repeatedly criticised for civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch accused it on Tuesday of war crimes, saying air strikes that hit family homes and a grocery store were carried out either deliberately or recklessly, causing indiscriminate loss of civilian lives.

Citation:

“UK firms make huge profits on arm sales to Saudi Arabia.” Al Jazeera, 19 September. 2017, aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/uk-firms-huge-profits-arm-sales-saudi-arabia-170919055235624.html. Accessed 9/19/17.

Response:

Audience: The targeted audience for this article I believe is for people that want to know more on the subject of the UK trading with Saudi Arabia. The Author does a good job of informing his audience about the topic, making this particular audience more aware of the matter. It does seem clear that the targeted audience would not be the UK government, based on the material in the article it does not seem to lean towards their side; rather it goes against their dealings that they have with Saudi Arabia.  

Author Bias: The author appears to come from the side that does not want the UK to be having these affairs with Saudi Arabia, and rather wants the two countries to stop. Now the UK would argue that they are simply doing business with Saudi Arabia, just doing a little trading, which does not seem bad, until hitting deeper into the topic, which is what the author is trying to communicate. The author is coming from the side that has the idea of the UK is hindering countries including the one that they are trading with (Saudi). The author does bring up the point that Saudi is suffering on the inside, by dealing with cholera, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by starvation. In my opinion those trials that Saudi is facing the UK does not need to deal with, if they want to keep on trading, they have the right to do so.   

Purpose: based on reading the article it seemed clear that the author had two purposes in writing this article. First, it was to inform the reader of what the situation is. Informing would help the reader to understand where the author stands, and what the author thinks about the situation. Without informing the reader of what the topic is covering, it would be difficult for the author to persuade the reader one way or another. Which brings us to our second purpose, which is to persuasively lure the reader into think that the author’s side is right and the other is not. The author is trying to make the reader think that it is bad that the UK is trading with Saudi, which is the author’s personal opinion, which is not bad, but the reader must make their own decision on what they believe is good for the wellbeing of Saudi Arabia.