David Lammy’s first week in office was surprisingly busy, even for a British foreign secretary. From a whirlwind tour of Europe to attending the NATO summit in Washington, Lammy hit the ground running.
With statements like “I want to reset both our bilateral relationship and our relationship with the European Union” during his trip to Germany, Poland, and Sweden, Lammy has made clear that he appreciates the level of repair needed in Britain’s relations with Europe. But that is not the only reset required. The U.K. needs a clear reset in its relations with much of the Arab world, too.
“Reconnect and rebuild” is a phrase Lammy has been using to describe his approach to his task in government. On his first day as foreign secretary, the only call to an Arab official was to UAE Foreign Affairs Minister Sheikh Abdallah bin Zayed, which was followed a day later calls from U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The focus on the UAE is part of a British acknowledgement that building key relationships will be vital as economic and security challenges continue to destabilize the region—with direct implications for Britain.
Focused on Europe and NATO in week one, Lammy set his sights on the Middle East in week two. Recognizing that the ongoing war in Gaza is the most pressing issue there, Lammy visited Israel and the West Bank nine days after taking on his new role. Ahead of his trip, he released a statement saying, “I am meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders to stress the UK’s ambition and commitment to play its full diplomatic role in securing a ceasefire deal and creating the space for a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. The world needs a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.”
His position on Israel and Palestine does not vary greatly from previous governments, however, Lammy stressed while in Israel the importance of adhering to international humanitarian law during war—a change in tone and emphasis from the previous government.
Lammy’s reference to a “full diplomatic role” highlighted what many in the region have felt—the lack of a robust British diplomatic role which has led to less credibility across the board.
The list of challenges in the Middle East is long but it is topped by a credibility gap of major proportions. The U.K. faces skepticism from governments and people alike. One example is Yemen, where the U.K. largely failed to recognize the dangers of the Houthis’ coup in Sanaa since 2014 and the havoc the group has wreaked on Yemen. However, since their attacks on international vessels since the onset of the war in Gaza, the U.K. has shifted its position, in line with Washington’s.
In addition to sanctioning the Houthis in January and February, and participating in military action against the group, official statements now refer to the Houthis as “Iranian-backed.” The change in position, only when U.K. economic interests were threatened, is one of a litany of examples that Arab officials mention when describing London’s lack of credibility.
Dealing with extremist groups—without tainting entire communities—is a fine balance and one that will be watched closely in the Middle East. Counter-extremism policy in the U.K. has gone through different iterations, but Starmer’s previous life as a barrister, defending figures like Jordanian extremist Abu Qatada from deportation, has raised some eyebrows among officials concerned the U.K. government would be soft on groupings like the Hizb ut-Tahrir which was banned by the last government or those with militant views.
Of course, Starmer defended dubious characters as part of his work as a human rights lawyer and later went after such people as a chief prosecutor. As he explained in an interview with the Sun, “I was chief prosecutor for five years. I prosecuted with my team nearly a million cases a year, including terrorists, murderers and drug dealers.” That nuance may be lost on some abroad and adds to the skepticism surrounding the U.K. as it hosted extremists like Abu Qatada.
Britain’s record in the region from colonialism to the invasion of Iraq has made many ordinary citizens quite sceptical of the U.K.’s intentions and interests. However, the past decade has exacerbated questions about Britain’s credibility as an ally for the states in the region. For example, the U.K.’s near “open-door policy” for Ukrainian refugees, compared to its increasingly tough position on refugees from troubled Asian or African countries is often cited in regional media as an example of British double standards.
Throughout the Arab world, concerns about British foreign policy decisions are tied to its near alignment with the United States. The U.K. undoubtedly has benefited from its close association with the U.S.—historically seen as uniquely influential in Washington. Lammy, known for his ties to the U.S., including a close friendship with former American President Barack Obama, can be seen as a conduit to Washington.
But equally, unpopular American positions are directly associated with the U.K., particularly due to their strong alliance during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with one of the top seven economies in the world, many Arabs expect the U.K. to carve out its own foreign policy.
In June 2022, Lammy visited Afghanistan and posted a statement on X saying, “The UK’s handling of the withdrawal of Afghanistan last summer was a total disaster. Today, I am in Kabul to raise awareness of the millions of Afghanistan’s civilians who are suffering from starvation.” Those millions continue to starve and now Lammy is in a position to help them beyond statements. How the U.K. chooses to deal with the Taliban will be important, as Afghanistan continues to suffer from terrible economic crises. The U.K.’s resettlement of more Afghan refugees will also be seen as an indicator of whether it will stick to the values it espouses.
The U.K. government also needs a clearer position on Iran. From Jack Straw—who served as foreign secretary in the later years of Tony Blair’s government—urging improved ties with Tehran, to the nuclear deal of 2015, there have been concerns in some Arab capitals that Iran’s support of militias and proxy groups has not been taken seriously. Lammy has said, “I am concerned when I see Iranian drones turning up in Ukraine.” That is a concern echoed in most European capitals and Washington, but it fails to mention that Iranian drones of course have been wreaking havoc in a number of Middle Eastern conflict areas, especially in Syria.
How the war in Ukraine ends—or extends—doesn’t affect the Middle East directly, but it will affect how the U.K. and the rest of Ukraine’s allies are viewed globally. If they abandon Kyiv, in the case of domestic financial pressures leading to less spending on Ukraine or following a potential second Donald Trump presidency, they will again reflect the image of being fickle allies. And if they continue pursuing a costly war without any diplomatic effort to reach a peace settlement, they may be seen as reckless.
As the United States gets more engrossed in its election campaign, and France contends with its inner turmoil, the U.K. is well-positioned to carve out a prominent role for itself once again on the world stage. However, this time, it should be based on mutual interests and long-term plans for stability and concerted action on issues like climate change and how to plan for an AI-powered future, where capitals like Abu Dhabi will be as important as London.
Ultimately, actions will speak louder than words. The Starmer administration’s first days in office have shown a seriousness the previous government seemed to lack. The next steps of the government toward the region, particularly Palestine and Iran, will set the tone for how it is perceived and dealt with in capitals across the Arab world.