Making the case for de-escalation in the UK's Strategic Defence Review

As a new UK Strategic Defence Review gets underway, a series of complex interconnected crises from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa must prompt a much greater emphasis on de-escalation. Charlie Linney and Lewis Brooks propose three areas where UK Defence can contribute to de-escalation and conflict prevention.

The last time the UK carried out a defence review in 2022–23, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had encouraged the UK to better prepare for interstate conflict and to focus on building up military capabilities to respond. As a new UK Strategic Defence Review gets underway, a series of complex interconnected crises from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa must prompt a much greater emphasis on de-escalation. We propose three critical dimensions: bolstering international norms, standards and agreements; increasing investment in short-term dialogue and crisis resolution interventions; and ensuring the conflict, gender and environmental sensitivity of UK defence activities. Regional relationships connect state and non-state belligerents across borders. Several governments with security ties to the UK are also involved in different aspects of military escalation. This complexity is illustrated by the Houthi strikes on Israel and attacks on international shipping vessels in the Red Sea, which are linked to the Israeli military’s conduct in Gaza. This action in turn triggered an American and British military response that has complicated attempts to bring peace in Yemen. Iran and Israel’s exchanges have escalated conflict further, as has Israel’s assault on Lebanon, its targeting of UN peacekeepers, and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. In the Horn of Africa, Somaliland’s Memorandum of Understanding – which allows Ethiopia access to the Red Sea – and Egyptian military support for Somalia have increased tensions and the risk that Somalia could be pulled into conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt. Somalia, Ethiopia and the Somaliland authorities are targets of UK defence engagement or recipients of security assistance.

The current international security environment is also made more complex and precarious by disinformation, environmental destruction and climate change, new technological innovations and increasing authoritarianism alongside shrinking civic space.

The impact of insecurity in the Middle East and the Red Sea is devastating for international security and UK interests. Aside from the human catastrophe, the UK’s reputation is also damaged by its security partner Israel’s destruction in Gaza and Lebanon. Disruption in the Red Sea has also had a negative impact on global trade, and both crises have harmed the environment and jeopardised food supplies. The consequences of a wider regional war in either the Horn of Africa or the Middle East would be catastrophic. In addition, if the UK becomes involved as an ally of a belligerent or is targeted by a rival it would risk the lives of UK civilians and service personnel alike.

Given the risks of miscalculation, the consequences of the UK getting drawn into conflict, and the potential humanitarian, security and reputational damage, de-escalation and preventing conflict need to be a much more significant part of UK defence strategy.

Bolster international norms, standards and agreements

The UK must take a long-term and structural approach to decrease military tensions – working where it can to reduce trends in interstate competition rather than simply reacting to them. One step in this direction would be reinvigorating the UK’s role in international arms control mechanisms. These systems, whether multilateral or bilateral, help lay the foundations for de-escalation by opening space to stabilise relationships with rival states, curbing the proliferation or build-up of equipment and capabilities, and preventing miscalculations by promoting mutual transparency on military capabilities.

The UK can work to strengthen existing agreements, such as the Arms Trade Treaty, by supporting dialogue between participating states on their arms export practices, and leading by example to ensure compliance with agreed standards. This means addressing the inconsistency between the UK’s professed arms export policy and its actual practice – typified by the UK’s continued military support of Israel despite the clear risk of international humanitarian law violations in Gaza, and of Saudi Arabia during its devastating air campaign in Yemen. In parallel, the UK needs to engage proactively on the international stage to address emerging challenges such as armed drones, the military application of artificial intelligence and the use of autonomous weapons systems. These technologies, among others, present specific challenges and heightened escalation risks due to accelerated decision-making and potential widespread impacts, which require specific responses. The UK government has acknowledged the potential negative impact of these technologies on conflict and human rights around the world, but it has not joined others in driving meaningful processes for change. Addressing these challenges in the Strategic Defence Review and reenergising the UK’s role in international regulation discussions would also provide an opportunity to strengthen relationships with a wider pool of states calling for norms and regulation – many from Africa, Asia and Latin America where these weapons are either already impacting civilians or are likely to impact civilians in the (near) future.

When it comes to emerging technologies, UK Defence can play a clear role in bringing not only a technical understanding of the capabilities of certain systems, but also of the potential ways such weapons could be used or misused.

Increase investment in crisis resolution and dialogue

If a crisis does lead to the brink of war, the UK must have the capabilities to rapidly cool temperatures and reduce the risk of an outbreak of conflict. Much of this may be a job for the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), but the military also has a host of relationships and communication channels that can be used. Defence attachés, participants in joint exercises, senior officers who have connected with their counterparts and soldiers involved in security force assistance may all create opportunities to convince friends and allies to avoid escalation. Additional communication channels and new expertise in negotiation and mediation may also be necessary. These could also create options to establish channels of communication with rivals. The US and China recently joined military training exercises led by Brazil after a meeting of senior US and Chinese commanders – discussions the UK should be seeking to learn from. By using dialogue expertise and communication channels, the UK will have a greater ability to avoid miscalculations and walk back allies and rivals from the brink of war.

Prioritise conflict, gender and environmental sensitivity in defence activity

The UK military needs to accelerate its improvements in conflict and gender sensitivity – measures it must take to analyse and mitigate the social, political and economic drivers of instability. Security partnerships with abusive security forces or authoritarian regimes risk driving poor governance, corruption and threats to life and ultimately can contribute to people seeking violent resistance. Failure to address ethnic, religious, linguistic or clan tensions can also increase instability. In the difficult environments in which the UK deploys or undertakes security force assistance, the military needs to coordinate with other UK government departments, states and multilateral bodies, and in particular with civil society including women-led organisations from the country of deployment who may be at the forefront of building peace, rights and democracy in very restricted civic space. The British army is already embedding some of these conflict sensitivity efforts through conflict analysis tools and in training by the Security Force Assistance Brigade.

A key question for the Strategic Defence Review is: how does this analysis need to evolve and how is it taken up at strategic levels? Greater analysis and risk mitigation in the fields of gender inequality and environmental destruction should be added to existing tools. Security force assistance missions may need to look at longer rotations to build deeper relationships and nuanced understanding of conflict dynamics. The UK should also be prepared to use defence relationships as leverage – withdrawing security force assistance or cooperation with states that pursue conflict where diplomatic or development solutions are available.

Opportunities ahead

As conflicts and crises become increasingly complex, interlinked and with more far-reaching consequences, UK Defence has a critical role to play in supporting the FCDO’s strategies for managing and de-escalating tensions. In this analysis, we have laid out three concrete areas where the UK military can build on existing progress to prioritise de-escalation and conflict prevention, which in turn would reduce the risks of miscalculation or of the UK getting drawn into conflicts. The ongoing Strategic Defence Review provides the perfect opportunity to grapple with these issues and chart a path forwards, as part of an integrated ‘whole-of-government’ approach to preventing and de-escalating conflict worldwide.