KEIR Starmer has watered down promises to introduce a law giving MPs a vote before military intervention and to stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, potentially adding two more U-turns to the growing list.
The Labour leader insisted on Sunday that his government would "commit to a review" of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and would not confirm if his pledge to halt sales still stood.
Back in 2020, he said that the UK “should stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia” over concerns about their use in the Yemen civil war.
His comments marked another change to his past pledges which will further raise concerns on the left and leave him open to Conservative accusations of “flip-flopping”.
The Labour leader would not give a straight answer on his stance on the BBC’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg.
Saudi Arabia intervened in the Yemeni civil war on the side of president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi in 2015, targeting Houthi positions in the country in a severe campaign which led to a “humanitarian catastrophe”, according to UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs Stephen O’Brien.
In February 2020, Labour MP Jo Stevens shared an article claiming that Western powers including the United States, United Kingdom and France were dragging out the war in Yemen for private profit.
She wrote: “The staying power of the conflict in Yemen is its greatest tragedy – one which our current Tory government refuses to look in the face.”
Responding, Starmer wrote on social media: “@JoStevensLabour is right – it’s why we should stop the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, as we said in our manifesto.
“I want us to go further and review all arms sales, as well as halting the sales to Saudi Arabia that are creating the horrifying humanitarian suffering in Yemen.”
When asked if he would stop selling weapons to Saudi Arabia once in government, Starmer said a review would take place and determine future sales.
The Labour leader said: “We will do a review to look at the sales, look at the countries and the relationships we have. Obviously that follows a review.”
He was asked multiple times and repeated: "We will do a review", at one point looking frustrated at Kuenssberg.
SNP Westminster Leader Stephen Flyn reacted to Starmer's comments on BBC Scotland's Sunday Show, stating: “I don’t think it's a surprise that Keir Starmer has walked away from a position which he previously held - we’ve seen that across a whole host of policy areas.
“But ultimately, I think the government needs to have the ability to respond to military action in a quick fashion and ultimately, they’re not always going to be able to consult parliament prior to doing that but what we heard on Laura Kuenssberg as well was David Cameron be asked whether this decision was taken on Tuesday and he wasn’t able to provide a clear answer in relation to that.”
Later, Starmer said there is “no inconsistency” between his previous promise to give the Commons a say before authorising action and his support for strikes against Houthis.
When running to succeed Jeremy Corbyn in 2020, Starmer promised a Prevention of Military Intervention Act under commitments to prevent “more illegal wars”.
He said at the time that he would “pass legislation” to say “military action” could only be taken if a lawful case was made, there was a viable objective, and consent from Commons had been given.
But his swift backing of the RAF strikes in Yemen in a bombing raid with the US that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak authorised without consulting Parliament raised questions about the pledge.
Starmer said: “There’s no inconsistency here.
“There is obviously a huge distinction between an operation, the like of which we have seen in the last few days, and military action, a sustained campaign, military action usually involving troops on the ground.”
He argued that his proposed change to give the Commons a say only relates to sending in ground forces, adding that he stands by that “in principle, absolutely”.
The Labour leader insisted he still wants to bring in the change but now hinted the alteration may not need to be in law.
“I want to codify that – it could be by a law, it could be by some other means,” he said.
But he added: “I’m not ruling out law.”
