In a revelation that raises serious ethical concerns, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been providing military training to more than a dozen countries flagged by the government itself for having poor human rights records.
A Freedom of Information (FoI) request has uncovered that between 2021 and 2024, the UK trained military personnel from over 100 nations, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Uzbekistan, all of which are on the UK government’s 2024 human rights priority countries list.
Training Across Conflict Zones
The list of recipients isn’t limited to human rights offenders; it also includes nations with long-standing conflicts, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have fought over Nagorno-Karabakh in recent years. India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbours with an unresolved dispute over Kashmir, also benefited from British military training. While Pakistan is flagged for human rights concerns, India is not.
The FoI response did not specify what kind of training was provided to each country, a key concern for campaigners and MPs alike. The British military offers a range of courses, from combat training, including the use of artillery and explosives, to more benign programmes like catering and music. However, the lack of transparency leaves critical questions unanswered.
MPs Demand Clarity
Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson Helen Maguire MP criticised the government’s lack of strategy:
“What this data makes clear is that government departments are working in silos and without a unifying vision. The government should clarify what this training looks like in practice, particularly whether it includes a focus on strengthening an understanding and observance of human rights within the relevant countries’ militaries.”
The UK’s Ethical Dilemma
The UK has long faced scrutiny for selling arms and providing military assistance to controversial regimes. Pressure group Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has been vocal about the dangers of equipping regimes accused of human rights abuses.
Kirsten Bayes, a CAAT spokesperson, warned:
“The UK government has long tried to draw the line between weapons that might be used for internal repression and those used for so-called ‘foreign defence,’ which supposedly makes it okay to sell repressive regimes major weapons systems.”
“Unfortunately, recent experience is that these countries may well use these weapons to target neighbouring countries’ civilian populations. It is wrong to be selling weapons and training into an unstable region, to regimes that put no weight on civilian life.”
One of the most controversial recipients is Saudi Arabia, which has been heavily criticised for its military campaign in Yemen, a conflict that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and a humanitarian crisis. Despite these concerns, the UK continues to train Saudi forces.
Who Else Received UK Military Training?
Beyond the high-risk nations, some of the UK’s NATO allies, including the United States, France, and Germany, also received training. Non-NATO countries such as Australia, Ireland, Japan, and Ukraine were on the list as well.
Notably, Israel received training all three years, though the UK did suspend 30 of 350 arms licences last September over concerns about their use in breaking international humanitarian law. Meanwhile, Palestine, which is not officially recognised by the UK as a state, received training in 2021/22 and 2022/23.
Who Was Excluded?
Despite these revelations, some of the world’s most authoritarian regimes, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, were absent from the list. The UK has officially classified these nations as part of what former NATO general secretary George Robertson termed a “deadly quartet.”
MoD’s Response: Diplomacy Over Ethics?
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson defended the UK’s military engagement, stating:
“Defence engagement makes an important contribution to international diplomacy. Military support is determined on a country-by-country basis, often including the provision of peacekeeping, medical, and language training.
“Our engagements undergo a thorough assessment for potential risks relating to human rights and international law, along with options to mitigate them and opportunities to promote compliance with international standards, including International Humanitarian Law.”
Final Thoughts: A Dangerous Game?
While the UK insists its military training serves diplomatic and peacekeeping purposes, the lack of transparency fuels concerns about complicity in human rights abuses. Without a clearer picture of what training these nations received, the question remains: Is the UK empowering stability, or is it arming repression?
