4 minutes reading
There has been a dramatic increase in the number of armed conflicts around the world and the death and suffering they cause over the past five years.
It is not only the wars in Gaza and Ukraine that dominate the headlines, but also the conflicts we spend less time on in Ethiopia and Sudan, Myanmar and Yemen and the threat of war from Guyana to North Korea that are causing enormous humanitarian and economic damage to those who can least tolerate it.
Those wars may feel far away, but their impact rarely stays within borders. They often pose a direct threat to our economy and our security. The flow of drugs into British streets runs from Colombia and Venezuela through the conflict zones of West Africa, fueling extremism along the way. The Houthis’ attacks in the Red Sea are disrupting maritime trade to Europe and threaten a revival of inflation.
But our response, both as a country and within the broader international community, has been woefully inadequate. Time and again we fail to learn from our past mistakes. If we had known in 2014 that a full-scale war would break out in Ukraine eight years later, we would have invested much more in preventing it. If we had anticipated the current horrific conflict in Gaza, we would have paid more than lip service to pursuing a political process over the past decade. The truth is that we have confined too many of these conflicts to the “too difficult” category and are unwilling to necessitate the investment of blood and treasure in time to prevent them from getting off the ground.
Nearly a decade after the Brexit campaign, it is a sad truth that Britain has lost much of its relevance as a foreign policy actor. Capitals from Washington to Addis Ababa are no longer scratching their heads and wondering what the British think. But in the case of conflict resolution, Brexit offers – almost uniquely – an opportunity. Outside the EU we have greater freedom of movement, especially when it comes to the groups we talk to and how. This does not mean that we should pretend to be neutral, like Switzerland or Norway. But there is more room to establish backchannels and Track 2 and Track 1.5 processes with armed groups and non-state actors. The need for this is a fundamental lesson from Northern Ireland: bringing peace means talking to people with whom you fundamentally disagree.
We have national assets and experience that allow us to make a difference in this area. We have a global diplomatic service and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. There are many talented British people leading international and civil society organizations working for peace, but they are too often underutilized by the government.
Outside the EU we have greater freedom of movement, especially when it comes to the groups we talk to and how.
A new Labor Together report, ‘Progressive Realist Peace-making’ by Christopher Thornton, published this week, outlines how we can play a more important role in conflict prevention and resolution as a central part of the foreign policy of a new government. But for this we need a government with the political will and risk appetite to deploy those resources within a new plan. It does not require the government itself to undertake the delicate work of cooperating with non-state armed groups – that can be done remotely by individuals and NGOs. But it will require a political commitment to make this work a priority, more funding, a new methodology for the FCDO and a determination to stay involved for the long term.
As the article argues, this must start with a commitment to long-term commitment. And that must be supported by a clearly understood rationale for where we act, based on a combination of moral and pragmatic considerations. Thornton argues for a greater British focus, particularly on Libya, Yemen and the Sahel.
If Labor wins the next election and David Lammy becomes the next Foreign Secretary, there will be a huge opportunity for Britain to regain its international reputation as a committed, competent and law-abiding country. A sober focus on peacemaking could be central to this approach.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Find out what MPs and colleagues are talking about. Sign up for the House’s morning email for the latest insights and responses from MPs, policymakers and organisations.