Will Britain hold its armed forces accountable for alleged war crimes in the Middle East?

Last week, five British special forces soldiers were arrested for alleged war crimes during their deployment in Syria two years ago.

They stand accused of using excessive force in the killing of a suspected militant, found with a suicide vest nearby, although the suspect was reportedly not wearing it when killed. The five soldiers deny these charges, saying they believed he posed a genuine threat.

The soldiers will be investigated by the Defence Serious Crime Unit (DSCU), which focuses on allegations of criminal activity by British armed forces.

In the past, Britain’s record of investigating alleged war crimes committed by its forces has been woeful, with ministers and senior military officials accused of covering up extrajudicial killings and other crimes, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In both Iraq and Afghanistan, there's been a glaring shortfall in how the UK authorities held members of the military to account over horrific alleged misconduct, and this must not be repeated with Syria"

Only one soldier has ever been prosecuted over an unlawful killing in Iraq, despite increasing indications of war crimes. That record has triggered mounting calls for independent judicial oversight to bring justice for the victims.

“In both Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s been a glaring shortfall in how the UK authorities held members of the military to account over horrific alleged misconduct, and this must not be repeated with Syria,” Kristyan Benedict, Crisis Response Manager for Amnesty International UK, told The New Arab.

A damning indictment

The arrests follow a public inquiry last year over allegations of special forces committing war crimes in Afghanistan. A series of damaging media reports and a legal challenge lodged by several Afghan families, who say dozens of their relatives were unlawfully killed in raids between 2010 and 2013, prompted that investigation.

Since the Afghanistan tribunal commenced, with the Ministry of Defence, or MoD, naming special forces for the first time, more allegations have surfaced.

In 2011, Gen. Gwyn Jenkins, who is now the second most senior officer in the British armed forces, received warnings that Special Air Service, or SAS, soldiers may have executed handcuffed detainees in Afghanistan, thus committing a war crime.

While legally obliged under British law to report any evidence suggesting a war crime to the military police, Jenkins instead opted to “lock up” this disturbing evidence within a classified dossier, according to the BBC Panorama investigation, effectively silencing these allegations.

It also emerged that the special forces blocked applications from eight Afghan commandos who had fought alongside British troops to relocate to the UK. Some Afghan forces had witnessed alleged war crimes, triggering fears that these commandos may provide evidence in the public inquiry, according to the BBC.  

As King’s College London researcher Elizabeth Brown wrote, the inquiry suggested a failure to investigate deaths promptly and attempts to cover up the incidents, with patterns indicating extrajudicial killings had occurred.

The investigation also includes reports that weapons were planted alongside victims who were unarmed civilians, while soldiers had turned off their cameras before raids.

According to Brown, if only some of the allegations presented were true, “they would represent a damning indictment of Britain’s Special Forces, and of the wider British armed forces’ ability to self-police”.

Operating in the shadows

Britain’s military forays into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are well known. Yet traditionally, the UK has refused to comment on special forces’ activities, leaving much of the public in the dark about their operations.

These elite teams operate in the shadows of Britain’s geopolitical aims, with a degree of operational autonomy compared to other branches of the army. The MoD has also traditionally upheld a policy of not commenting on SAS activities.

When they do attract attention, it’s often when they’re involved in controversy or when operations go wrong.

According to Iain Overton, Executive Director at Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), the use of special forces represents an attempt to “be everything, everywhere, all at once,” underpinning London’s ambition “to appear to be a power worth its seat at the UN Security Council,” despite having relatively limited resources.

"Given the SAS has been operational in at least 19 countries in the last decade, this is clearly an unacceptable lack of accountability and oversight, a failure that is now being seen in arrests and inquiries"

“It’s a post-colonial legacy that is, at best, an overstretch and one that appears invariably to lead to ill-defined policy goals. At times, it seems to be more about bombast than effectiveness,” he told The New Arab.

The recent Syria arrests have spotlighted special forces’ role in that country. During Syria’s war, not only did special forces join the fray to back up British airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS), but they also previously assisted anti-Assad rebels in 2012 – even before the British parliament voted against putting British troops on the ground against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in 2013, to deter the use of chemical weapons.

The fixation on operational secrecy was so intense that when SAS sniper Matt Tonroe was killed in Syria in 2018 due to an accidental grenade detonation from a US ally, his official designation was stated as a member of the Parachute Regiment.

Their actions didn’t end there. In Yemen, special forces had advised Saudi-led coalition operations against the Houthis, while later dropping humanitarian aid for impoverished civilians.

Stepping up their actions, around 40 SAS forces were deployed in August 2021, to hunt down Houthi rebels following a reported drone attack by the faction on the Israeli-operated “Mercer Street” oil tanker.  

As Yemen once again comes into focus, following UK-US airstrikes on Houthi targets as they step up attacks on Red Sea shipping, the use of special forces was tabled for possible missions such as disabling the engines of Houthi boats.

Lack of transparency

While the use of special forces to assist the Saudi-led coalition raised further concerns that the UK was “taking sides” in the war, they also triggered criticisms in parliament that British troops may have fought alongside child soldiers recruited by the Coalition, many as young as thirteen, highlighting the lack of parliamentary oversight.

And during the 2011 revolution in Libya, not only did special forces assist in hunting down Muammar Gaddafi, who was later killed by Libyan rebels, they remained in the country until 2019 to support countering IS which had emerged post-revolution, while 20 troopers were deployed to Tunisia to preventing illegal crossings from IS in Libya.

After special forces fired a missile which blew up an IS-owned truck packed with explosives, then-chairman of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee Crispin Blunt called for “proper accounting” and “clarity” over what the special forces were doing in Libya, despite stressing the need to support Libya’s post-revolution government.

Also operating in Ukraine, Sudan and Somalia, SAS forces were also recently on ‘standby’ in Cyprus to assist Israel’s assault on Gaza, with the stated aim of rescuing British national hostages taken by Hamas. Although the MoD declined to give any details on possible SAS operations in that context.

With aims to punch above its weight in terms of resources, the use of special forces to project power on a budget has inevitably led to blowback.

“The government still refuses to speak about Special Forces' actions in parliament and there is no oversight by any select committee,” said Iain Overton.

“Given the SAS has been operational in at least 19 countries in the last decade, this is clearly an unacceptable lack of accountability and oversight, a failure that is now being seen in arrests and inquiries,” he added.

"The UK needs to demonstrate that it can hold members of its own forces accountable, especially for crimes committed overseas"

The need for accountability

Despite efforts to project a positive and pro-rule-of-law image of its foreign policy, a primary concern remains the pervasive political will to avoid holding its armed forces accountable.

This pattern is historical. A notorious instance is the 1919 Amritsar Massacre in British-ruled India. In that dark episode, Colonel Reginald Dyer, who ordered his troops to open fire on a peaceful Indian gathering, killing and injuring thousands of men, women, and children within ten minutes, escaped prosecution and was merely dismissed from his position.

Even after the dissolution of Britain as a colonial power, that trend persisted as Britain followed the United States into various wars, including Iraq.

An International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation concluded in 2020 that war crimes were committed in Iraq, as dozens of Iraqis reported torture, assault, deliberate hydration and starvation, and religious and sexual degradation. However, the court didn’t take any action, nor did Britain.

On the contrary, the government pursued its Overseas Operations Act following the investigation, which in its final form prevents the prosecution of soldiers if they took place over five years ago, while limiting the time to bring a claim for personal injury or death to six years. That bill would have made prosecutions virtually impossible.

Yet advocacy from rights groups including Human Rights Watch and Freedom from Torture, as well as opposition in the House of Lords, ensured the original bill was watered down, ensuring that time limits would not apply to war crimes, torture, and genocide.

However, legal experts and rights groups still feel there is room for improvement.

“The justice system has a lamentable track record of applying the principle of command responsibility,” Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor at Human Rights Watch, told The New Arab. “The UK needs to demonstrate that it can hold members of its own forces accountable, especially for crimes committed overseas,” he added.

"Military investigations need to be completely independent and outside of the chain of command, as well as beyond governmental influence. Preventing criminal investigations is also a crime under human rights law,” Baldwin said.

“Independent judicial oversight is necessary to ensure justice is delivered for alleged victims, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria.”

Legal advocacy and media pressure have driven a shift towards transparency. It will be prudent to monitor whether recent investigations, including those concerning Syria and Afghanistan, will ensure accountability is upheld.

“The recent scandals should be a wakeup call for future governments to ensure that the SAS are not only held to account but reined in and reformed.”

Jonathan Fenton-Harvey is a journalist and researcher who focuses on conflict, geopolitics, and humanitarian issues in the Middle East and North Africa.

Follow him on Twitter: @jfentonharvey