Foreign policy may seldom swing elections, yet conflict often defines a Prime Minister. Thatcher is remembered for successfully liberating the Falkland Isles. John Major for beginning to end the Troubles. Tony Blair for liberal interventionism, successfully in the Balkans and Sierra Leone, more questionably in Afghanistan and Iraq. David Cameron failed to see through intervention in Libya and lost a Commons vote to punish Assad’s use of Chemical weapons. Theresa May did not make a similar mistake over Syria.
Now Rishi Sunak has his war. On Friday he authorised British forces into action for the first time. Four RAF Typhoons left Akrotiri in Cyprus to drop bombs on military targets in Yemen under the control of Houthi forces.
To many, Britain’s bit-part role alongside the Americans may seem inevitable and unremarkable, consistent with our governments’ past form in previous decades. Coverage has been quickly relegated to inside pages as Conservative MPs and supporters tear into each other over the, as yet, fantasy project of sending a small number of illegal migrants to Rwanda.
Sunak’s use of force merits more consideration than that. These are dangerous times and the UK’s role as an international force is in question.
It was a deliberate display of personal belligerence by the Prime Minister and his concerns extended further than the Suez Canal. His decisions also reveal a lot about what attitude Sunak – and for that matter Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer – take to Britain’s role in the world and to the exercise of executive power.
The Prime Minister flew directly to Ukraine from the late evening cabinet where he had briefed his cabinet on the operation already underway in the Middle East. He left his deputy Oliver Dowden to bring the leader of the Opposition and Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons speaker up to speed.
In Kyiv to announce another year of increased British military aid, Sunak wore a bracelet made of bullets given to him by a Ukrainian commander and another in the colours of the Ukrainian flag alongside his habitual Hindu Kautaka red thread, symbolising protection and marriage. Meanwhile the Foreign Secretary David Cameron told TV viewers “the lights are flashing red” because of global “danger and instability” and the Defence Secretary Grant Shapps committed 20,000 British troops to NATO’s massive Steadfast Defender exercise along the Russian border.
In his statement to MPs the Prime Minister flatly rejected a “malign narrative”. Action against Houthis was, he insisted, “completely unrelated to Israel and Gaza.” Britain’s enemies don’t see it that way.
The Houthis claim they are attacking “Israeli-linked” ships in support of the Palestinians. Their apologists trumpet that the easy way to re-open the Suez canal route would be a ceasefire by Israel.
The UK was the only other country to take part actively in US-led attacks, although the Netherlands, Australia, Canada and Bahrain leant “non-operational” support. Two days earlier the UN Security Council had adopted a resolution “demanding that the Houthis immediately cease all attacks on merchant and commercial vessels” in the Red Sea. The Prime Minister and President Joe Biden reportedly discussed the possibility of taking action before Christmas but left the operational planning this year to officials.
The British mission was limited and is not thought to have caused any deaths directly although five Houthi fighters are reported to have been killed overall. Britain and some allies, including Germany, are insisting firmly that the attacks on the Houthis have nothing to do with the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza sparked by the 7 October terror attack. The Prime Minister did not mention that war in his statement reporting “limited, necessary and proportionate action in self-defence” following attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. The British say there have been Houthi assaults against ships linked to over fifty countries, including the Royal Navy’s HMS Diamond, which is on patrol as part of the international Operation Prosperity Guardian.
“The United Kingdom will always stand up for freedom of navigation and the free flow of trade,” Sunak insisted. One third of normal world container trade, mostly headed for the UK and Europe, passes through the Red Sea and Suez Canal. Much of it is now being diverted around the Southern tip of Africa adding costs and time delays to supplies and providing reasonable grounds for intervention.
It is not clear however whether the action taken so far will bring a secure end to the threat to shipping. The US reports that there has been a subsequent, unsuccessful incoming missile attack over the weekend. As of Monday afternoon, there was a strike on a US-owned ship resulting in no injuries or significant damage. The UK and the US have not ruled out taking further military action.
If it doesn’t solve the problem, Western action will come under increasing scrutiny at home and there will be fears of escalation. Powerful Saudi Arabia failed to overcome the Iranian-backed Houthis in nine years of war. Houthi command centres proved as difficult to eliminate as Hamas’ in Gaza. In the cases of both Hamas and the Houthis, the asymmetric response of nation states to terror attacks recruited more allies to the terrorist’s cause.
Sunak has advertised that the UK is on the other side to those stirring instability and is pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine and pro-United States even as prospects in all three are potentially unstable.
Western allies agree that Israel has a right to defend itself. But the rising toll of casualties on the Palestinian side and uncompromising statements taken by Israeli leaders are causing dismay in capital cities including London.
“Simple message. Our support cannot and will not falter. To all Ukrainians Britain is with you for as long as it takes,” the Prime Minister promised on social media. There has been no such staunch and vital support from the US. Candidate Trump and his Republican Party acolytes openly advocate accommodation with Russia.
In recognition of the UK’s newly reaffirmed attitudes, Russia, China and Iran have already upped their abuse of this country.
The Prime Minister has acquired one vital ally: Sir Keir Starmer. In studied contrast to his predecessors Ed Miliband and Jeremy Corbyn, this leader of the opposition was quick to declare “Labour backs this targeted action [in Yemen]” as well as support for Ukraine. Perhaps because he thinks he will soon be Prime Minister, Starmer also backs the executive’s prerogative to “take decisions on the use of force” suggesting merely “where possible military interventions should be brought before this house…to ask the right questions.”
This accord between the two sides means that the British people will have nothing to choose between the two main parties on defence of the realm at the approaching election. Starmer has moved his party a long way and back towards New Labour’s approach. He clearly believes that it is now more aligned to the national mood. Those who disagree strongly are left with the option of voting for the Liberal Democrats, SNP or smaller parties.
Whoever wins the election and whether Britain and its allies prevail or not in the various contests around the world now boiling dangerously, Rishi’s War will have defined the next government’s view of our country’s role in the world.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life
