UK's Global Influence Diminished: Experts Warn of Reduced Capacity to Prevent War Crimes Amidst Aid and Diplomatic Cuts

Experts have issued a stark warning: reductions in the UK’s foreign aid and diplomatic capabilities are significantly undermining its ability to prevent atrocities in an era of escalating global conflicts. Yasmine Ahmed, senior director at Amnesty International, stated that the UK government is not acting with sufficient speed to avert war crimes, citing alleged atrocities in Sudan and Gaza as examples. Ms. Ahmed commented to The National, “Often atrocity prevention is not prioritised sufficiently in terms of a whole of government policy response.”

Last year, the UK’s overseas aid budget was reduced from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of its gross national income, coinciding with a rise in global conflicts. These cuts were initiated by former prime minister Keir Starmer. According to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, Britain's spending on overseas aid is projected to decrease by 42 per cent, or £6.5 billion ($8.6 billion), over four years. One of the initial impacts of these reductions was felt by the international humanitarian law cell within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), which monitors war crimes in Gaza. Despite the FCDO’s assertion that these cuts would not impede its human rights assessment capabilities, Ms. Ahmed expressed skepticism. “If you’ve got a huge percentage – 20 per cent of the Foreign Office being cut – there’s no doubt this is going to have a significant impact across the board,” she stated, questioning the FCDO's future capacity to conduct these assessments.

Recent weeks have seen an intensification of conflict between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Yemen, and the emergence of a potential full-scale war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The UK's capacity to enforce international laws of war and human rights on the global stage is reportedly diminishing. Ms. Ahmed observed, “What we’re finding now is that the UK and certainly other European states and other western states don’t have as much leverage as they used to,” leading to a noticeable decline in civilian protection during conflicts. She added, “They [the UK and European governments] are operating in an increasingly volatile political world and it’s increasingly transactional. There is less space to be values driven.”

On Tuesday, a coalition of British human rights lawyers and global conflict experts urged the UK to relax its jurisdiction rules, enabling British courts to prosecute a broader range of war crimes and pursue companies implicated in such offenses. The group cautioned that the UK is currently “ill-equipped to identify and respond effectively to the warning signs of genocide and other atrocity crimes,” posing “serious implications” for national security, stability, and economic prosperity.

The Atrocities Standing Group, comprising individuals such as Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk and Baroness Helena Kennedy, released findings from an 18-month inquiry and parliamentary hearings. The report advocates for a more robust global policing role through the implementation of “Magnitsky-style sanctions” and suggests repurposing frozen sovereign assets from such sanctions to compensate victims of war crimes via new legislation.

As global conflicts escalate, the UK government aims to reassert Britain’s international standing. The report emphasizes, “As the international rules-based order is facing fragmentation and significant challenges, it is key that the UK uses its global position to lead and support efforts to secure justice and accountability for international crimes.” Former British prime minister Gordon Brown, who supports the report, stressed the need for the UK to adopt substantive foreign policy actions beyond mere “condemnation” and “sympathy.” He posed the critical question ahead of the report’s launch: “Will we continue to respond to atrocity crimes only after they have shocked our conscience, or will we build a serious system to predict and prevent them, and respond to them lawfully and in time?”

The erosion of human rights protections risks further exacerbation by the US decision to sanction the International Criminal Court. Ms. Ahmed noted that while the UK has issued “strong statements” of support for the court, it might implement a “blocking statute” to render these sanctions ineffective within the UK.

The conflicts in Sudan and Gaza have highlighted the UK government's delayed response in intervening effectively, according to Ms. Ahmed. She questioned the prolonged delay in the UK's decision to suspend approximately 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel for military use in Gaza, a move eventually announced in September 2024. Ms. Ahmed pointed out that export licensing is an area where the government could act swiftly, adhering to its own criteria and the Arms Trade Treaty. “They have the duty to prevent genocide and other crimes, but that’s very hard to enforce. But when you have the export-licensing criteria, that’s where we find there’s a space where the government themselves has processes to evaluate,” she explained, detailing her own frequent engagements with officials to present evidence, which still resulted in delays. She added that the delay was justified by Israel’s restriction of aid, which prevented a finding of commitment to international law.

Similarly, the UK's response to the Sudanese civil war has failed to mobilize “the full plethora of government machinery,” despite its significant resolutions at the UN Security Council. With long-term cuts to overseas aid anticipated, Ms. Ahmed, a former legal adviser to the FCDO, proposed measures to strengthen the role of human rights in UK foreign policy. She advocated for the units focused on human rights and atrocity prevention to be “supported at the highest-ministerial level, prioritised, given resources and given the power within the bureaucratic system to have a say when policy decisions are being made.” Currently, government human rights policy advisers are often marginalized, with Ms. Ahmed observing, “So often, what I have found, is that the human rights directorate aren't key stakeholders in key political decisions.”

Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s recent declaration that settler “terrorists” were responsible for “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank was hailed by Ms. Ahmed as a significant development, marking the first time the government has made such a determination, particularly given the extensive forced displacement of Palestinians. Questions persist regarding the implementation of this significant foreign policy shift, with Foreign Office officials suggesting a six-to-nine-month timeframe for initial measures against illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Campaigners, including Ms. Ahmed, argue this timeline is excessively long. “As I understand it, there is a commitment to implementing it in a way that’s effective,” she stated, emphasizing that “the devil will be in the detail to ensure that they in fact do that.” Amnesty International and other organizations are urging the government to extend the ban to financial services that support companies involved in illegal settlements, arguing that “It’s not just about goods and services to settlements. It’s also about the financial enabling of the occupation … which are involved in continuing the financial stability of the settlements.”