I’m Mark Smith, a former diplomat and policy adviser at the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO). My career revolved around the Middle East and involved time in the Arab world. As the leading officer on arms sales policy, I evaluated whether the UK government’s arms deals complied with both domestic and international law’s legal and ethical standards.
In August 2024, I reached a breaking point and resigned because the UK government refused to stop arms sales to Israel during the bombardment of Gaza. This decision came after more than a year of internal lobbying and whistleblowing efforts. My resignation got a lot of attention, and within weeks, the newly elected Labour government declared it would pause arms sales to Israel. Although this was a welcome change, it arrived long after necessary action had been delayed. Meanwhile, Israel continued its brutal actions in Gaza while the UK remained inactive.
My tenure at the FCDO revealed how ministers could manipulate legal systems to shield allied nations from accountability. They could stall, distort, and hide official processes, giving an illusion of legitimacy while enabling severe human rights violations. As the US, one of our closest allies, considers a full-scale ethnic cleansing in Gaza, how will we respond?
What I witnessed wasn’t merely a moral lapse but actions that verged on complicity in war crimes. The British public deserves to see how decisions are made behind closed doors and how systemic issues enable the government to cause harm while evading scrutiny.
As a lead adviser on arms sales policy, my work involved collecting data on foreign governments’ military campaigns, focusing on civilian casualties and international humanitarian law. This data was crucial in reports that advised ministers on the legality of ongoing arms sales.
Legally, the UK’s stance is clear: if there’s a “clear risk” that weapons might aid serious law violations, arms sales must stop. Civil servants adhere to a code of impartiality, creating neutral, evidence-based advice. Manipulating this advice for political reasons isn’t only unethical but also illegal.
Unfortunately, I witnessed senior officials under ministerial pressure to skew legal assessments. Reports frequently returned to me with orders to “rebalance” findings, downplaying civilian harm while highlighting diplomatic overtures, facts notwithstanding. I was often called in for verbal instructions—a tactic deliberately used to avoid written records, which could invite freedom of information requests or legal scrutiny.
One instance comes to mind, where a senior official bluntly said, “This looks really bad,” before urging changes to make it seem less alarming. My protests were disregarded. Significant report edits overshadowed evidence of war crimes to paint an erroneous picture of “progress” by other governments. This was part of a wider, systemic effort to suppress uncomfortable truths.
Perhaps the most troubling case of this manipulation occurred concerning arms sales to Saudi Arabia amid its military campaign in Yemen. The UK government fully knew Saudi airstrikes resulted in substantial civilian casualties. High-level meetings, including legal advisers, acknowledged exceeding the threshold for stopping arms sales. Yet, instead of advising ministers to halt exports, the focus shifted toward legally re-protecting the status quo.
Rather than face the illegalities, officials used delay tactics—extending deadlines and demanding unnecessary additional information. This “gather more evidence” approach created a loophole, maintaining arms sales while projecting compliance. I voiced my concerns repeatedly, only to be overruled. A colleague, equally troubled, resigned over the issue. I soon followed in resignation.
Following a judicial review initiated by civil society organizations, the UK eventually had to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The government, instead of correcting course, responded by changing laws, making it harder to challenge arms exports legally. A year on, arms sales to Saudi Arabia resumed.
While the Saudi situation was disturbing, the UK’s arms sales to Israel were even more concerning. Israel’s repeated attacks on Gaza had killed countless civilians and destroyed critical infrastructure—actions clearly against international law. Yet, the UK remained committed to justifying arms sales to Israel, relying on the same flawed processes and evasive approaches.
During Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza—with unprecedented destruction aimed at civilian areas—my concerns deepened. At this time, I was serving as a diplomat in Dublin. Ireland, strongly supportive of Palestine, put me in an awkward position. Defending UK policy became impossible for me without satisfactory explanations.
When I inquired with the FCDO about the legal basis for our arms sales to Israel, I only faced hostility and evasive tactics. Emails went unanswered. I was cautioned against documenting my concerns in writing. Lawyers and senior officials bombarded me with instructions to “stick to the lines” and delete correspondence. It became evident no one wanted to confront the vital question: how could continuing arms sales to Israel possibly be legal?
The Foreign Office’s handling of these issues is scandalous. Officials are pressured into silence. Processes are manipulated for politically favorable outcomes. Whistleblowers are ignored, isolated, and side-lined. Meanwhile, the UK government continues to arm regimes committing atrocities, relying on legal loopholes and public relations spins.
I pursued every internal avenue to air my grievances. I contacted the whistleblowing team, engaged with senior officials, and even directly approached the foreign secretary, David Lammy. I was met with delays, obfuscation, and outright resistance at every corner. The system is geared not for accountability but to protect itself at all costs.
The UK’s involvement in war crimes must end. We need transparency and accountability in our arms export policies. Ministers must be held to the same standards they profess to uphold. Civil servants should be able to give impartial advice without fear of political interference, and whistleblowers should be protected instead of punished for uncovering the truth.
The Gaza situation is critical. The UK’s closest ally proposes the mass eviction of 2.1 million people from Gaza and the destruction of one of the world’s most densely populated areas—a clear act of ethnic cleansing. I urge my former colleagues—those who still value integrity and justice—to refuse complicity. Do not approve reports that disguise crimes against humanity. This isn’t self-defense—it’s collective punishment. It’s genocide. Silence must end now. Do not let ministers trade lives for political convenience. The time for accountability is here.
Mark Smith is a former Foreign Office policy adviser.
If you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article, you are welcome to submit a 300-word response via email for consideration in our letters section. Please click here for submission details.
