Kelly Petillo is the programme coordinator for Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Britain's new prime minister may be a former human rights lawyer, but the chances of the British government adopting a human rights-first foreign policy are slim, especially in the Middle East, as the United Kingdom will be constrained by its "special relationship" with the United States. While the Conservatives in power in London for the past 14 years embraced a kind of imperial nostalgia in the aftermath of Brexit—the "Global Britain" championed by Boris Johnson—Keir Starmer and the Labour Party have talked up Britain as a "development superpower." As the Labour manifesto declares: "Regaining Britain's global leadership on development is a key part of our plan to reconnect with our allies and partners."
The Middle East will test the extent of this commitment. The new British foreign secretary, David Lammy, has outlined a doctrine of "progressive realism" that calls for "using realist means to pursue progressive ends," including "countering climate change, defending democracy, and advancing the world's economic development."
It is a clear break with the narrow lens through which the previous government, led by Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, viewed much of the world, especially the Middle East and North Africa. This inward-looking British foreign policy was perhaps best exemplified by Sudan. In what is now the largest displacement crisis in the world, the U.K. mostly focused on pursuing narrow interests like evacuating their own citizens and providing insufficient levels of aid, leaving the war in Sudan to steadily worsen.
In 2021, Johnson's government cut Britain's foreign aid budget by £4 billion, which represented a reduction of aid spending from 0.7 to 0.5 percent of the country's gross national income. Last year, a startling 30 percent of Britain's aid budget went to hosting refugees and asylum-seekers within the U.K., rather than to humanitarian relief efforts abroad, suggesting how inward-looking British aid policy had become under the Conservatives. The impact on Britain's Middle East policy has been acute, with major funding shortages in humanitarian aid to countries like Yemen and Syria and in key refugee host countries like Jordan and Lebanon, where U.K. funding went from $165 million in 2021 down to in $52 million in 2023.
In just a few days since the landslide election that swept the Labour Party into power with a huge 174-seat majority in Parliament, Starmer has already showed signs of breaking from his predecessor. He immediately scrapped Sunak's plan to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda, which Britain's highest court ruled unlawful. Following initial reports that his government would drop its predecessor's bid to delay the International Criminal Court's decision on issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, along with senior Hamas leaders, over alleged war crimes in Gaza, Labour is now reportedly backtracking under U.S. pressure.
When it comes to Middle East policy, Labour will be hampered by the need to maintain the "special relationship" with Washington, as the Palestinian case is already revealing.
- Kelly Petillo
While a new Labour government is likely to inject some much-needed energy and optimism into British foreign policy that had seemed rudderless after Brexit, it would be wrong to expect any radical departure from previous administrations when it comes to the Middle East or humanitarian policy. Starmer may represent some stability, especially after all the Tory turnover on Downing Street, from Johnson to Liz Truss's chaotic and short-lived premiership to Sunak. But as he and Labour made clear during the election campaign, they have ambitious domestic policy pledges, from green energy to housing to economic growth, that will require significant funding resources and could put foreign policy issues like aid and development assistance on the back burner.
When it comes to Middle East policy in particular, Labour will be hampered by the need to maintain the "special relationship" with Washington, as the Palestinian case is already revealing. In its manifesto, Labour states that it will proceed to recognize a Palestinian state only if part of and "as a contribution to a renewed peace process" resulting in a two-state solution. That sounds a lot like Washington's position, given longstanding U.S. policy that a Palestinian state should be achieved through negotiations with Israel, rather than unilateral recognition as Ireland, Spain and Norway recently did.
Labour initially hesitated revisiting the previous British government's decision to cut off funding to UNRWA following Israel's baseless accusations that agency staff were involved in the Oct. 7 attacks into southern Israel. Funding to UNRWA has been restored by most of the European countries that had initially halted it, as well as by the EU. Yet in the U.S., Congress is still withholding support at least until March 2025. The head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazzarini, warned recently that the agency—the main lifeline for so many Palestinians in Gaza—may not be able to continue its operations there beyond August if its funding isn't restored. Following Lammy's visit to Israel this week, he announced that the U.K. would resume funding to UNRWA, which he called "absolutely central" to aid efforts in Gaza and a "moral necessity in the face of such a catastrophe."
In the immediate aftermath of Oct. 7, Starmer stunningly declared that Israel "has the right to" cut off water and electricity to Gaza as part of its military campaign, and initially resisted calls for a cease-fire. Those statements caused massive backlash within his party. In February, Starmer called for a "cease-fire that lasts" in Gaza, but not before he voted against a cease-fire resolution in Parliament. On one of his first days as prime minister earlier this month, Starmer spoke of the "clear and urgent need for a cease-fire" in Gaza in his first call with Netanyahu.
Labour lost many voters due to its position on the war in Gaza, an issue that will not go away after the election, which generated a new political force in British politics advocating for Palestinians. In a series of political upsets, Labour lost four seats to pro-Palestinian independent MPs who campaigned expressly on Gaza. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also retained his seat, adding to a small but vocal bloc in Parliament pushing for a more progressive U.K. position on the Palestinian issue. Labour's ability to maintain a strong support base will depend heavily on how it approaches Israel and Palestine. There could be echoes of this trend in the upcoming U.S. elections this fall, with anger simmering among many progressive voters over the Biden administration's unconditional support for Israel's war in Gaza and the White House's relative silence on Israeli abuses, including the blocking of humanitarian aid.
The reluctance of Starmer's government to adopt a more progressive stance on Palestine is in sync with the Biden administration's position. This dynamic brings back the specter of Tony Blair's decision to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq for the sake of the "special relationship," which led to the biggest anti-war protest in British history. Almost exactly 20 years later, Labour risks repeating that mistake over Gaza—if it doesn't do more to stave off even deeper suffering in Gaza, or recognize Palestinian statehood like more European countries have, because of concerns about the implication on Britain's relations with the U.S.
If the U.K. wants to be honest about securing any kind of progress in Gaza and beyond, living up to Labour's own ideals about human rights and international law, it needs to act independently from its biggest ally. While it may be more difficult to do on political issues, humanitarian policy could be an area where Britain can re-assert itself as a global actor. The Labour manifesto cautiously pledges to restore development spending at 0.7 percent of gross national income "as soon as fiscal circumstances allow." Given that humanitarian needs are dramatically increasing around the world, especially in the Middle East, the British government should be faster in implementing this pledge. In Reconstruction in Gaza, whenever it can begin, is estimated to cost a staggering $18.5 billion. Since Netanyahu stated that the Rafah offensive would be Israel's last "major" military operation in Gaza, it is likely that even more Palestinian deaths will be caused by the man-made famine in the besieged territory, stemming from Israel's continued obstruction of humanitarian operations, rather than from Israeli airstrikes and artillery.
If the U.K. wants to be honest about securing any kind of progress in Gaza and beyond, living up to Labour's own ideals about human rights and international law, it needs to act independently from its biggest ally.
- Kelly Petillo
Unwavering U.S. support for Israel's unlawful conduct in Gaza, alongside the expanding illegal occupation in the rest of the Palestinian territories, is turning Washington into a spoiler rather than anything like the broker for peace it has long claimed to be. The U.K. should not stand behind the U.S. on Israel-Palestine; instead, it should take initiative on the humanitarian front in a way that can actually make a difference, especially in the face of famine in Gaza. The Labour government should confront Israel on its repeated obstruction of any kind of humanitarian aid sent to Gaza, its continued sabotaging of cease-fire negotiations and its deliberate targeting of humanitarian workers, local civil society and journalists in Gaza. The U.K. should also come out strongly in support of efforts within the International Court of Justice looking into whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and the legal consequences of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.
Lammy's visit to Israel earlier this week showed the tight rope Labour is walking when it comes to both foreign and domestic perceptions of the U.K.'s positioning over Gaza. Following the visit, Lammy was criticized by Israelis for advocating for the release of hostages and a cease-fire, but failing to call for the defeat of Hamas. But he also faced backlash from a British left frustrated by the U.K.'s unwillingness to fundamentally challenge Israel's conduct, whether by reversing the decision to stall ICC arrest warrants or halting British arms sales. In a way, whatever Labour does ends up upsetting one camp or the other.
Yet even if the British government takes new steps to pressure Israel, it will have limited impact without a change in U.S. policy to impose real costs and consequences on Israel for its actions in Gaza. Still, the U.K. can play a positive role by asserting itself as an independent actor and doing what it can to end the war in Gaza and restrain Israeli abuses. The U.K. is less constrained than its trans-Atlantic ally and can make a difference on key issues, such as bringing some respite to the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, the wider Middle East and beyond, and supporting international institutions. If the new British government doesn't act, the Labour Party's pledge to uphold human rights and international law for a "new Britain" will end up being little more than empty campaign rhetoric. By narrowly following the U.S. in the Middle East, the U.K. is once again putting its international standing at risk.
Editor's note: This piece has been updated following the U.K. government's decision on July 19 to resume funding to UNRWA.
