Refocusing UK foreign policy: a roadmap for effective conflict resolution and peacebuilding
The new UK government faces the formidable challenge of reshaping British foreign policy.
The events of 7 October 2023 and their aftermath have once again highlighted significant shortcomings in the UK’s approach to conflict resolution and peacekeeping. It is crucial to recognise that these challenges are not new, but rather part of a longer pattern that requires careful examination and reform.
Since the conclusion of World War II, British influence in the Middle East has experienced a gradual but unmistakable decline. The UK government has increasingly aligned itself with American policy, often to the detriment of its own strategic interests. This close association has led to participation in a series of military interventions – including the Gulf War to Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – each of which has arguably diminished the UK’s standing on the global stage and its capacity to act as an independent mediator in international conflicts.
The 2013 parliamentary vote against military intervention in Syria stands out as a moment of careful deliberation, which prevented the UK from becoming entangled in another complex conflict. However, it also underscored the need for a fundamental reassessment of the UK’s role in global affairs and its relationship with the United States. It is imperative that the new government critically evaluates this relationship to ensure it serves the UK’s long-term interests and values.
The sanctions dilemma
One of the key elements of UK foreign policy that warrants reconsideration is the use of sanctions against non-state armed groups (NSAAs) and individuals. While sanctions can be a powerful tool in state-to-state relations, their effectiveness against NSAAs is questionable at best.
Groups such as the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, UNITA in Angola, the Houthis in Yemen and various militias in Libya, Sudan and Iraq have demonstrated a remarkable ability to withstand or circumvent sanctions. A thorough review and potential overhaul of this approach is necessary to ensure that UK foreign policy tools are fit for purpose in the contemporary geopolitical landscape.
The challenge of special envoys
The appointment of special envoys to conflict zones, while well-intentioned, has not yielded the desired results. Envoys dispatched to Syria, Libya and Afghanistan have faced significant challenges, often stemming from unclear mandates, insufficient resources and political constraints that limit engagement with all relevant parties.
Moreover, the inconsistent approach to appointing envoys – notably, the absence of peace envoys to Yemen or to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – raises questions about the coherence of the UK’s conflict resolution strategy. The new government would do well to reassess this approach.
The problematic ambiguity of peace
Perhaps one of the most significant challenges facing UK foreign policy is its inconsistent and self-serving concept of peace. Rather than adhering to a universal, principled definition of peace, the UK seems to tailor its understanding to suit its geopolitical interests in each specific conflict. This approach not only undermines the UK’s credibility as a neutral arbiter but also raises serious questions about its commitment to genuine conflict resolution.
In Ukraine, for instance, the UK’s vision of peace aligns closely with NATO interests and a desire to counter Russian influence. In contrast, its approach to peace in Yemen has been markedly different, often turning a blind eye to the actions of Saudi Arabia, a key ally and arms customer. The situation in Israel and Palestine presents yet another variation, where the UK’s historical involvement and current strategic interests often overshadow considerations of justice and long-term stability.
This chameleon-like definition of peace is deeply problematic. It suggests that the UK is more concerned with advancing its own geopolitical agenda than with fostering genuine, sustainable peace. Such an approach not only fails to address the root causes of conflicts but can actually exacerbate tensions by prioritising short-term political gains over long-term stability. This inconsistency severely undermines the UK’s moral authority on the global stage, damaging its ability to act as an effective mediator and eroding its soft power.
It is also crucial for the new government to address the UK’s image in many low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries. Rather than being perceived as a neutral mediator or a force for peace, the UK is often viewed through the lens of its colonial past and its close alignment with US foreign policy. This perception significantly limits the UK’s ability to engage effectively in conflict resolution and peacekeeping efforts. Rebuilding trust and credibility will require sustained effort, genuine engagement with LMIC perspectives and a demonstrated commitment to equitable partnerships.
The government’s decision to cut the Office for Conflict Stabilisation and Mediation budget for 2023/24 by 27% is a stark illustration of misplaced priorities. This short-sighted move not only undermines the UK’s ability to engage effectively in conflict resolution but also sends a worrying message about the country’s commitment to global peace and stability. This budget cut must be reversed if the UK is serious about reclaiming its role as a credible force for peace on the global stage.
The way forward: focused engagement and principled diplomacy
The new government must make some difficult decisions about the allocation of resources, political capital and diplomatic focus. The era of attempting to maintain a global presence in all spheres must give way to a strategy of focused engagement, concentrating efforts on areas where the UK can make a meaningful difference. This recalibration should include a critical assessment of the UK’s strengths and limitations in the current global context. While the UK remains a significant player on the world stage, it must recognise that its role has evolved.
The UK should focus on becoming a respected middle power and consider repositioning itself as a facilitator of dialogue and a provider of expertise in areas such as governance, institution-building and economic development. This approach could allow for meaningful contributions to global stability without overextending the UK’s resources or capabilities.
While maintaining strong alliances, including the special relationship with the United States, the UK must be prepared to chart its own course when necessary. This includes being willing to respectfully disagree with US foreign policy decisions when they do not align with the UK’s interests or values.
The sanctions regime requires a comprehensive review, with a shift towards more targeted actions that can genuinely constrain NSAAs without causing undue harm to civilian populations. If special envoys continue to be part of the UK’s diplomatic toolkit, their roles must be clearly defined, adequately resourced and supported by coherent long-term strategies.
Crucially, the UK must develop a consistent, principled approach to peace that transcends narrow geopolitical interests. This means committing to a definition of peace that prioritises justice, human rights and long-term stability for all parties involved in a conflict, even when this may not align perfectly with the UK’s immediate strategic goals.
A new era of British diplomacy
If the new government can rise to this challenge, it has the potential to usher in a new era of British diplomacy – one characterised by wisdom, restraint, and genuine global partnership. The international community is watching with interest. It is time for the UK to demonstrate that it is ready to play a constructive and thoughtful role in building a global order that prioritises genuine peace and stability over narrow geopolitical interests.
