Editor’s Note: This piece is brought to you by Nabila Arab, who has a Master’s in Migration Studies as well as being a board member on the UNDP Youth Panel and the Hub Coordinator for the Beirut branch of the Al Sharq Forum. Make sure to follow her work, here.
In recent decades, the UK played a key role in peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa ( MENA) region and the wider Global South. Whether through diplomatic mediation, military interventions, or funding governance reforms, Britain was seen as a stabilising force in fragile regions and countries. But today, that influence is fading.
Instead of leading peace talks, supporting institution-building, and fostering economic recovery, the UK has stepped back, slashing its foreign aid budget and peacebuilding efforts while taking a reactive approach to crises rather than shaping their outcomes. Its focus has shifted to defence spending and border control, raising critical questions: Is the UK abandoning its global
responsibilities? And if so, what are the consequences—not just for conflict zones, but for Britain itself?
Why Peacebuilding Still Matters for the UK
It’s easy to assume that what happens in Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria is not of Britain’s concern. However, conflicts in these regions have global ripple effects, impacting migration, security, and economic stability—and the UK is not immune.
Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and recently Lebanon, for example, have suffered devastating wars, displacing millions and destabilizing their neighbors. The UK was once actively involved, backing mediation efforts, governance reforms, and post-war recovery programs. But now? Its role has shrunk to emergency aid, leaving peace negotiations to regional actors and global powers like the U.S. and the EU.
The problem is that conflicts don’t just resolve themselves. They drag on, fuelling regional insecurity, violent extremism, human trafficking, and organised crime—all of which have direct consequences for the UK and Europe.
Rather than overhauling its foreign policy, Britain must better use its existing diplomatic and economic tools to support stability and conflict prevention. The UK still holds international credibility, a strong diplomatic network, and has had a historic influence in MENA and Africa. But if it retreats from peacebuilding, its global impact will diminish.
The UK’s Role in Levant
To help stabilize the MENA region, the UK must take a comprehensive approach to Lebanon and Syria, addressing governance challenges, security threats, and economic recovery.
In Lebanon, the UK must go beyond military aid, strengthening institutions, supporting transparent governance, and investing in economic development. Given Lebanon’s status as one of the largest refugee-hosting countries, the UK should prioritize sustainable refugee integration, ensuring displaced populations and host communities have access to essential services and economic opportunities to prevent future instability.
Ten years ago, Syrian refugees became a flashpoint in British politics, with Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster fueling anti-immigration sentiment. Yet today, the UK’s disengagement from Syria’s reconstruction has only deepened instability and displacement Long-term peace in Syria depends on strategic reconstruction, economic revitalization, and governance reforms. Beyond lifting sanctions, Britain must engage in transparent rebuilding efforts, infrastructure development, and political reconciliation. Investing in education, healthcare, and inclusive governance is essential to preventing a resurgence of violence and another wave of forced migration.
Broadening Peace Efforts Across MENA
Beyond Lebanon and Syria, the UK must also step up its mediation efforts in Sudan and Libya, where ongoing conflicts threaten regional stability and mass displacement. These crises could worsen without diplomatic intervention, fueling another major refugee crisis.
Britain could also support government reform in post-conflict states to ensure that governments are stable, inclusive, and capable of preventing future violence. A one-time aid package won’t stop a country from collapsing again, but funding civil society programs, training local leaders, and investing in election monitoring could build long-term resilience.
The UK must move beyond short-term emergency aid and commit to long-term development initiatives to be truly effective. Through UK Aid, Britain has already supported humanitarian relief and stabilization efforts in Sudan, including livelihood programs and infrastructure rebuilding. However, with the conflict escalating, these efforts must go further—focusing not just on immediate relief but on sustainable economic recovery. Expanding job creation programs, small-business investments, and governance support would help prevent a cycle of instability and renewed conflict. Economic stability remains one of the most powerful tools for lasting peace, and Britain has both the resources and expertise to make a real impact.
Why Border Policies Alone Won’t Work
Ignoring conflict zones doesn’t stop people from fleeing them.
For years, the UK has focused on tightening border policies, increasing deportations, and investing in border security. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: none of that stops people from making dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean or the English Channel. As long as conflict zones like Syria, Sudan, and Afghanistan remain unstable, people will continue to flee—not because they want to, but because they have no other choice.
The UK’s current approach focuses only on deterrence, but that fails to address the root causes of displacement. Without stability, economic opportunities, and safety in home countries, people will continue to risk dangerous migration routes to escape conflict, persecution, and economic collapse.
What the UK Should Do Instead
Instead of just tackling migration at the border, Britain should address it at the source, ensuring that fragile states are stabilized so people can remain in their home countries. The UK could help refugee-hosting countries like Lebanon and Jordan by investing in education, healthcare, and employment programs for displaced people, ensuring they don’t feel pressured to take unsafe migration routes. Britain should also support voluntary, dignified refugee return programs, ensuring those who want to return home have safety guarantees, job opportunities, and essential services in place.
Rather than allowing desperate migrants to rely on smugglers and dangerous crossings, the UK could work with international organizations like UNHCR and IOM to create legal migration pathways, reducing exploitation and human trafficking in the process.
Right now, Britain is at a crossroads. It can continue scaling back its engagement in global peace efforts, prioritising border security and short-term cost-cutting over long-term stability. But that
will only lead to greater instability, increased migration pressures, and geopolitical irrelevance. Or, it can redefine its role—using diplomacy, conflict resolution, and economic investment to create lasting peace and prevent crises before they spiral out of control.