Britain’s foreign policy: it's time for reform

Click:web novel

September 5, 2017 – London, UK. The second day of protests against the world's largest arms fair held in London's docklands. Peter Marshall/Zuma Press/Press Association Images. All rights reserved.“Blowback” – a term used to describe the
costs and consequences of a government’s actions. A term that perfectly
illustrates Britain’s harmful role on the world stage – particularly in the
arms industry, and how this in turn endangers the nation.

Many observers have depicted Britain’s
foreign policy as promoting justice worldwide. Robin Cook, foreign secretary
under Tony Blair, famously said in 1997 that Britain would pursue an “ethical
foreign policy” that would “make Britain once again a force for good in the
world”. Some today would still agree with Cook’s comment of Britain’s foreign
policy in recent years.

Yet in practice, Britain’s position on the global
stage has hardly reflected such claims. Alongside the many destructive
invasions, it is one of the world’s
largest arms dealers; its arms sales have also
increased in recent years.

Not only are these weapons directly sold to
human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who commit atrocities on
Yemen and Palestine respectively, they often end up in the hands of those who
threaten British lives. Terrorists in other words.

The latter is nothing new. Britain’s
actions have aided groups that threaten its national security for a significant
part of the twentieth century. Take Margaret Thatcher’s role in arming
the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet Union – alongside the USA, Saudi
Arabia and others. She can be seen telling the zealots who
would go on to make up Al-Qaeda: “the hearts of the free world are with you”.

Needless to say, this is the group that
carried out the 7/7 bombings on British soil – which killed 56 and injured 784
British citizens, among other countless atrocities.

Yet Britain’s stance has not changed. In
the so-called ‘war on terror’, such policies linger. Britain has pledged to
stand against Islamic State (IS) and other militant groups in the region. Yet
an Amnesty
International report reveals that IS has mostly gained its weapons from
Britain and its allies flooding Iraq with weapons, which the extremist group
have seized.

Across the Middle East and Africa, Britain
has continued this hazardous policy of arming volatile nations. It struck a
number of huge
arms deals worth millions of dollars with Libya after Colonel Gaddafi fell
in 2011, and has done the same with Nigeria.

Yet these war-torn nations are at risk of
being overrun by IS in Libya, Boko Haram and potentially others, which raises
concerns about British weapons falling into the hands of more extremists. Libya
is a particular concern, as it borders the Mediterranean Sea, giving potential
militants access to Europe. 

"The
lifespan of a weapon is often longer than the political situation it is sold
into. Weapons travel and we don't know where they might end up. Groups like
ISIS have seized large quantities of western arms, including UK weapons,” Andrew Smith,
spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) said in an interview.  

Smith added, “Pouring
weapons into war zones doesn't make any of us safer, and only makes it more
likely these weapons will be used in atrocities for years to come."

Even as IS rapidly loses territory, its weapons and
disillusioned fighters could be transferred elsewhere, or end up in the hands
of a new extremist faction. And also, if Britain fails to reforms this
interventionist foreign policy it has pursued for decades, it could empower
other deadly factions several years down the line.

Not only that, Britain must also reassess another factor that
will create more national security threats: its insidious relationship with
Saudi Arabia.

Many have accused Saudi Arabia of
financing and aiding terror in the Middle East and further afield, including
IS. Logic dictates that Saudi Arabia will continue to stoke tensions in the
region, creating more conflict and enhancing the global terrorist threat.

Yet the British government shows reluctance to address such
actions from their unruly ally. After all, it has failed to confront the Kingdom over accusations of aiding radicalism within Britain itself. A report surfaced in
July revealing Saudi Arabia’s role in financing and nurturing extremism within
the UK. Yet the government has ignored it and concealed its contents.

At the time, co-leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas slammed
the government’s response to the report, saying:

“The
statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for
extremism originates from – leaving the government open to further allegations
of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK.”

A group of
survivors from the 9/11 attacks – which have been linked to Saudi Arabia, had also urged Theresa May to publish the report.

As well as putting British lives at risk, the UK’s foreign
policy contradicts the public's wishes. One poll shows that
most British people oppose selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and other human
rights abusers. This is unsurprising, as such policies make the world a more
dangerous place.

While the British government has pledged to
end terrorism and protect its citizens, it has only increased the risk of them
being harmed.

It is vital that the British government rethinks its risky
foreign policy. With its prominent position in the arms trade, and the impunity
it grants countries like Saudi Arabia, Britain is playing with fire.

Only by withdrawing its impunity towards certain nations and
curtailing its arms policy can Britain take the necessary steps to genuinely
tackle threats to its national security, and prevent future ones from emerging.
It could also inspire others to pursue a more just foreign policy too.