Whitewashing War Crimes: How Britain Launders Its Arms Trade

The Foreign Office’s Dirty Laundry: How Britain Launders Its Arms Trade

It all comes out in the wash…

When a whistleblower steps forward to expose government malfeasance, the first instinct of those in power is to reach for their trusty bottle of institutional bleach. But Mark Smith’s revelations about the Foreign Office’s arms export with their cheap bottle of ‘chicanery’ cannot be so easily washed away, it implies complacency to war crimes.

Mark Smith’s whistleblowing article published in the Guardian becomes hard reading when you realise the implications. You stop and ask yourself that awkward question in its revelations “Are we the bad guys?” He states:

“In August 2024, I resigned over the UK government’s refusal to halt arms sales to Israel amid the bombardment of Gaza. This decision followed over a year of internal lobbying and whistleblowing. My resignation made headlines, and weeks later, the new Labour government announced it would finally suspend arms sales to Israel. While this was welcome, it came far too late. Israel has continued to commit atrocities in Gaza as the UK stands by, unwilling to act.”

“My time at the FCDO exposed how ministers can manipulate legal frameworks to shield “friendly” nations from accountability. They stall, distort and obscure official processes to create a facade of legitimacy, while allowing the most egregious crimes against humanity to take place. Now, as the US – one of our closest allies – proposes the full-scale ethnic cleansing of Gaza, what will our response be?”

“What I witnessed was not just moral failure but conduct that I believe crossed the threshold into complicity with war crimes. The British public deserves to know how these decisions are made behind closed doors – and how systemic dysfunction enables the government to perpetuate harm while shielding itself from scrutiny.”

The answer would be a resounding “Yes”. Smith, a former second secretary who resigned in August 2024, has painted a picture of systematic deception that would make Sir Humphrey blush. Civil servants, he tells us, were instructed to “rebalance” their findings—bureaucratese for burying evidence of civilian casualties beneath mountains of diplomatic waffle. Reports documenting war crimes were sent back for “editing,” like a schoolmaster returning an insufficiently patriotic essay.

The choreography is exquisite in its cynicism. Verbal instructions replace written records, ensuring no paper trail exists for those pesky freedom of information requests. Evidence of civilian harm is carefully “recontextualised”—a fancy word for pretending thousands of dead Palestinians don’t matter quite as much as maintaining profitable defence contracts.

Smith stresses: “As a lead adviser on arms sales policy, my role was to gather information on the conduct of foreign governments involved in military campaigns, particularly regarding civilian casualties and adherence to international humanitarian law. This information formed the basis of reports that advised ministers on whether continued arms sales were lawful.”

“The UK’s legal framework is clear: arms sales must cease if there is a “clear risk” that weapons could be used to commit serious violations of international law. Civil servants are bound by a strict code of impartiality, requiring us to produce neutral, evidence-based advice. Any attempt to alter or manipulate this advice for political convenience is not just unethical – it is unlawful.”

Most damning is Smith’s account of that Foreign Office meeting where officials openly acknowledged crossing their own legal threshold for weapons exports to Saudi Arabia. Their solution? Not to halt the sales, but to devise delaying tactics. “Wait for more evidence,” they said—as if thousands of civilian deaths weren’t evidence enough.

Exporting Death, Covering Tracks: The UK’s Complicity in Global War Crimes

It’s breathtaking in its hypocrisy: Labour’s David Lammy, who once demanded the Tories publish their legal advice on arms exports to Israel, now sits in the Foreign Secretary’s chair maintaining exactly the same opacity he once condemned. Of 350 arms export licenses to Israel, Labour suspended a mere 30—a fig leaf so transparent it would make Adam and Eve blush.

The government’s response to Smith’s allegations reads like it was generated by an AI trained on Yes Minister scripts: “Our export license controls are some of the most robust in the world,” they assure us, presumably with straight faces. One wonders what “robust” means when senior officials admit in private meetings that they’ve crossed their own legal thresholds, then simply move the goalposts.

The playbook is as cynical as it is effective. Reports “rebalanced” to downplay civilian casualties. Verbal instructions used to avoid paper trails. Evidence of war crimes painted over with diplomatic whitewash. All while ministers and officials play a grotesque game of “see no evil, hear no evil” with the bodies piling up in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, continues to receive British weapons with barely a murmur of protest from our “progressive” Labour government. F-35 fighter parts flow freely even as these same aircraft rain death upon refugee camps.

Smith’s testimony reveals not just individual failures but an entire system designed to facilitate denial. “Make it look less stark,” demands one official, perfectly encapsulating a bureaucratic culture where truth is seen as an inconvenient obstacle to be massaged away.

This isn’t mere incompetence or oversight—it’s institutional corruption dressed up in diplomatic niceties. When officials deliberately obscure evidence of civilian casualties, when ministers create deliberate “loopholes” to bypass their own legal obligations, we’re witnessing something far more sinister than simple negligence.

Smith, driven by an unshakable sense of moral duty, declares: “The UK’s complicity in war crimes cannot continue. We must demand transparency and accountability in our arms export policies. Ministers must be held to the same legal and ethical standards that they claim to uphold. Civil servants must be empowered to provide impartial advice without fear of political interference, and whistleblowers must be protected, not punished, for speaking the truth.”

The question now isn’t whether our arms export system is broken—Smith’s revelations make that abundantly clear. The question is whether we, as a nation, are comfortable being accomplices to alleged war crimes, so long as the paperwork is properly massaged.

Labour’s response to all this? The same mealy-mouthed bureaucratese we got from the Tories: talk of “robust controls” and “strict guidance.” They’ve even recycled the Conservatives’ favourite dodge of hiding behind “reviewing” and “considering” while the bombs keep falling.

It seems the transformation is complete. Labour hasn’t just inherited the Tories’ foreign policy—they’ve perfected it. Smith’s courage in coming forward deserves more than carefully worded denials and bureaucratic deflection. As the saying goes: “It all comes out in the wash,” however, some stains don’t wash out. The blood on these documents—carefully edited though they may be—won’t disappear with diplomatic double-speak or bureaucratic obfuscation.

Sir Keir Starmer promised us a government of integrity. Instead, we got masters of evasion who’ve learned that if you can’t hide the bodies, you can at least bury them in paperwork.

Paul Knaggs