My name is Mark Smith. I am former diplomat and political advisor of the Foreign Office, Commonwealth and Development (FCDO). During my career I worked in the direction of the Middle East and performed my functions in the Arab world. As responsible for the policy of sale of weapons, I was in charge of evaluating whether weapons sales by the British government complied with the legal and ethical norms established by national and international legislation.
In August 2024, I signed for the refusal of the British government to stop the sale of weapons to Israel in the midst of Gaza’s bombing. At the time of presenting the resignation he worked as the second secretary of the United Kingdom Embassy in Dublin. I made that decision after more than a year of internal pressure and complaint of irregularities.
The media echoed my resignation and, weeks later, the new Labor Government announced that it would finally suspend the sale of weapons to Israel. Although it was a positive decision, it was too late. Israel has continued to commit atrocities in Gaza while the United Kingdom remains out, without wanting to intervene.
The time I spent in the FCDO showed how ministers can manipulate the legal framework to prevent “friends” countries from accounts. They paralyze, distort and obscure official processes to create a facade of legitimacy, while allowing the most heinous crimes against humanity to be committed. Now that the United States, one of our closest allies, proposes a massive ethnic cleaning in Gaza, how do you plan to answer the United Kingdom?
I witnessed not only a moral failure, but of a behavior that I think crossed the line of complicity with war crimes. British public opinion deserves to know how these decisions are made behind closed doors and how systemic dysfunction allows the United Kingdom Government to perpetuate the damage while protecting from scrutiny.
As the main advisor in arms sales policy, my function consisted of collecting information on the proceeding of foreign governments involved in military campaigns, especially in relation to civil victims and compliance with international humanitarian law. This information constituted the basis of the reports to advise the ministers on the legality of the continued sale of weapons.
The legal framework of the United Kingdom is unequivocal: the sale of weapons must cease if there is a “manifest risk” that weapons can be used to commit serious violations of international law. The officials are subject to a strict impartiality code, which forces us to issue neutral and test -based opinions. Any attempt to alter or manipulate this advice for political convenience is not only not very ethical, but illegal.
However, during my career, I witnessed how senior officials received intense pressures from the ministers to biased the legal evaluation. Repeatedly, the reports with instructions to “pond” the conclusions, to minimize the tests of damages to civilians and emphasize the diplomatic efforts, regardless of the facts. They often summoned me to give me word instructions, a tactic deliberately used to avoid written record that could be subject to requests for freedom of information or legal scrutiny.
On one occasion, a senior official told me bluntly: “This is very bad”, before urging me to “make it less stark.” My complaints were ignored. Substantial modifications were introduced in my reports, diverting the attention of credible war crimes, to paint a misleading panorama of “progress” by foreign governments. It was not an isolated case, but was part of a systematic effort to suppress uncomfortable truths.
The most worrying example of this manipulation occurred during my work on the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia in the middle of its military campaign in Yemen [que dio comienzo en 2015]. The British government was fully aware that Saudi air attacks were causing massive civil victims. In a high -level meeting with senior officials, with the presence of legal advisors, it was recognized that London had exceeded the threshold necessary to stop the sale of weapons. However, instead of advising ministers to suspend exports, attention focused on finding ways to “return to the right side” of the law.
Instead of facing illegality, officials resorted to dilatory tactics: they expanded reports of reporting and demanded additional additional information. The “wait to have more evidence” created a legal vacuum that allowed the sale of weapons to continue while the United Kingdom government pretended to comply with the law. I exposed my concern repeatedly, but they ignored me.
One of my colleagues, also worried about what we were witnessing, chose to resign. I soon follow your example. Finally, London was forced to suspend the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia after losing a judicial resource filed by civil society organizations. But instead of learning from the lessons of this failure, the Government responded by changing the law to make it difficult to challenge weapons exports before the courts.
A year later, the sale of weapons resumed to Saudi Arabia.
Although the Saudi case was alarming, which I witnessed in relation to the sales of weapons from the United Kingdom to Israel was even more worrying. The continuous bombings of Israel on Gaza have killed thousands of civilians [más de 48.000] and destroyed vital civil infrastructure, actions clearly incompatible with international law. However, the British government continued to justify the sale of weapons to Israel, based on the same evasive vitiated and tactical processes.
During Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, a campaign marked by unprecedented destruction and the deliberate attack on the civilian population, my concern was increasing. At that time, I worked as a diplomat in Dublin, where the unconditional support from Ireland to Palestine placed me in an awkward position. It was expected of me to defend the United Kingdom policy, but I could not do it conscientiously without answers.
When I asked FCDO questions on the legal basis of our weapons sales to Israel, I found hostility and evasive. The emails were unanswered. They warned me not to leave a written trace of my reservations. Lawyers and senior officials besieged me with defensive instructions of “sticking to the indications” and deleting the correspondence. It was clear that no one was willing to address the fundamental issue: how was it possible that the continued sale of weapons to Israel was legal?
The way in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs deals with these issues is a real scandal. The officials are intimidated to keep silent; processes are manipulated to obtain politically convenient results; Complanders are hindered, they are isolated and ignored. And in the meantime, the British government continues to put together regimes that commit atrocities, hiding after legal lagoons and public relations.
Before presenting my resignation and that it transcended the media, I followed all internal procedures within my reach to raise my concerns. I contacted the team in charge of the complaints of irregularities, I wrote to high positions and even directly contacted the External State Secretary of the British Government, David Lammy. At all times I found delays, obfuscation and a resounding negative to collaborate. It was clear that the system is not designed to account, but to protect at all costs.
The United Kingdom cannot remain an accomplice of war crimes. We must demand transparency and responsibility in our arms export policies. Our government must comply with the same legal and ethical norms that it ensures. Officials must be able to offer impartial advice without fear of political interference and complainants must be protected, not punished, to tell the truth.
The situation in Gaza could not be more serious. The United States, the main ally of the United Kingdom, now proposes the mass expulsion of about two million people from Gaza and the demolition of one of the most densely populated civil areas of the Earth: this is ethnic cleaning. I ask my former colleagues, those who still believe in the values of integrity and justice, who refuse to be accomplices. Do not approve reports that cover crimes against humanity. This is not self -defense, it is a collective punishment. It is genocide. The silence of silence is over. Do not allow ministers to change human lives for political convenience. The time has come to account.
Mark Smith is a former political councilor of the British Foreign Ministry.
Translation: Emma Reverter
#witnessed #illegalities #complicity #war #crimes #Gaza #Yemen #Dimití #British #Foreign #Ministry
