In the Absence of Any Popular Oversight: How Did the UK Recently Invade 19 Countries?

A study by a British foundation has revealed the extent of secret missions by the United Kingdom’s special forces in conflict zones around the world, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.

The study, issued last month by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), found that the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) had conducted covert operations in 19 countries for undisclosed reasons, some of which were home to armed groups such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

The UKSF also carried out hostage rescue operations in eight of those countries and collected intelligence information in areas such as Estonia, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Mediterranean Sea, according to the study.

The UK government increased its investment in equipment for the special forces by 2 billion pounds sterling ($2.5 billion) in 2015 under the banner of counterterrorism, the study said.

Mohamed Gad, a researcher and analyst of security affairs, told Al-Estiklal that the UK was using its special forces to influence the internal conflicts in these countries to serve its own interests, especially in the Middle East region.

He cited Britain’s colonial history and its involvement in strategic waterways and trade routes from East Asia to Gibraltar.

The study also documented recent expansions of the UKSF’s operations in Ukraine and Sudan.

In Ukraine, the special forces were deployed to gather intelligence on Russia, according to leaked American military documents. In Sudan, they evacuated diplomats and citizens after violence erupted in Khartoum.

The revelations come amid public opposition to British military interventions abroad.

A poll by YouGov published last April showed that Britons generally supported noncombat assistance to Ukraine, but were less enthusiastic about direct fighting with Russian forces.

 

Undemocratic

Unlike the foreign intelligence service, which is overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee, British special forces operations are shrouded in secrecy and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

That lack of transparency and accountability has drawn sharp criticism from some experts and activists who say it undermines democracy and allows the government to use military force without public scrutiny.

“Refusing to discuss special forces operations in Parliament means definitely using military force for special forces without accountability, allowing for announcing successful operations and counting them as a victory, and covering up failed operations,” said Iain Overton, executive director of Action Against on Violence, a London-based charity that campaigns against armed violence.

He said in media statements that the government’s evasion from discussing these military operations in the UK Parliament represented “a strong slap for the democratic process.”

He also questioned whether the end justified the means when Britain claimed that its covert operations served the interest of the nation.

But some analysts say that the UK has valid reasons to surround these operations with secrecy, such as avoiding constitutional and legal complications that it may face when deploying special forces in different regions.

Mohamed Gad said that the UK tried to hide traditional military operations carried out by special forces under other concepts such as training and maritime safety, protecting shipping supplies flow and humanitarian operations.

He added that special forces were created to evade accountability and parliamentary oversight and laws, saying that “shadow wars” required forces not subject to oversight.

 

Blackout Policy

The UK government has been keeping the public and Parliament in the dark about the operations of its special forces abroad, raising questions about the legality and accountability of its military interventions, according to a 2018 report by the Oxford Research Group, a think tank that studies global security issues.

The report, titled Britain’s Shadow Army, warned that the secrecy surrounding the activities of the UKSF could undermine the government’s ability to explain or justify its reasons for deploying them, and erode the legitimacy and credibility of British military action overseas.

Unlike other branches of the armed forces, the UKSF is not subject to parliamentary oversight, as the Defense Committee in Parliament does not have the necessary clearance to scrutinize them, because their operations involve sensitive intelligence and security information.

The Foreign Affairs Committee, which provides reports on UK interventions abroad, also lacks the access or authority to discuss any information about special forces in public.

The legal status of the UKSF depends on the context in which they operate. If they conduct operations as part of an armed conflict, they are bound by international humanitarian law, which consists of a set of rules that protect persons not involved in hostilities, according to a report by the Human Security Center, a research organization that focuses on human rights and security.

The center explains that if operations are outside the scope of armed conflict, international human rights law applies in this case, which allows for flexible use of force as long as it complies with the principles of proportionality, necessity, and distinction.

However, some experts argue that Britain may be violating international law by carrying out military operations in sovereign countries without their consent or a United Nations mandate in order to protect its interests or citizens.

Ayman Salama, a professor of international law, said in media statements that even if there is an international umbrella from the United Nations that confers legitimacy on the UK’s combat actions, this does not mean that British forces are exempt from their international obligations under international law.

He added that among these obligations, according to international law: Principles of humanity, military necessity, distinction between military and civilian targets, taking precautionary measures when fighting, and not harming civilians not involved in armed conflicts.

Salama also said that when Britain carries out military operations in sovereign countries without their consent or a UN mandate, this is considered “a blatant military intervention and a violation of the independence and sovereignty of these countries.”

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter prohibits member states from interfering in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, as well as Article 1 of the Charter, which stipulates the principle of equality among all states.

As for compensating those affected by operations carried out by special forces, Salama said that “the responsibility here becomes double, between compensatory and criminal, and falls on the state whose forces commit crimes against humanity or war crimes.”

He stressed that even if the state pays material compensation to individuals or entities affected by these crimes, this does not negate acknowledging criminal responsibility for those responsible for committing these crimes.