A week after Parliament was recalled to debate and vote on a potential military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the ramifications of the motion’s defeat continue to resonate across the international community as does the debate itself. Reflecting on a tumultuous few days in parliament, here are some personal observations which I hope will explain why I supported the motion.
Seeking Consensus – the motion
The debate was in direct response to the August 21st missile launched chemical attack on the rebel stronghold of Ghouta in and around East Damascus. As is Parliamentary convention, the motion proposing the potential use of our armed forces was shared with Opposition parties with a view to secure cross –Party consensus. Following extensive discussions with Ed Miliband, changes were made to the motion including the need for a second Parliamentary vote and time for UN inspectors to complete their report. The proposal therefore was not an immediate green light for military involvement but an initial step in challenging the deployment of chemical weapons in the 21st century.
The debate
The eight hour debate was opened by the Prime Minister who made the case for the international community’s obligation to identify and punish regimes which deploy chemical weapons. Evidence was discussed proving that chemical weapons had been used. This motion was not about taking sides or involving ourselves in forcefully ending the civil war. However it soon became clear that ghosts of previous interventions were haunting the chamber, with many MPs focussing on the public distrust over the false case for war with Iraq. Matters were not helped by an endorsement for military action from Tony Blair (speaking from a yacht off St Tropez) – hard to think of a more inappropriate person to rally the cause.
The motion was defeated by 13 votes (272 -285). This result was a major disappointment for the Government, obliging the Prime Minister to concede Britain would have no military involvement in punitive strikes and forcing all to reflect on our place on today's international stage. However, Parliament’s involvement in this decision-making process was significant in eventually prompting legislatures in both France and the US to hold their own debates.
Labour’s role
EdMiliband’s appalling tactics are worth noting. He succeeded in turning an international debate into a game of Party political one-upmanship, cynically offering an amendment which differed little from the Government’s motion. In contrast to the Prime Minister’s speech, which emphasised the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law, Miliband’s response was poor. He had clearly not made up his mind but sought to leverage the issue for his own cause, following a summer of dismal headlines. As the impact of Labour tactics became apparent (possibly to create distance from the memory of Tony Blair) there is division in his party over how to vote if the motion was reconsidered, following any UN inspection report or further chemical strike. It is difficult to see Ed’s brother David Miliband choosing this course of action.
Consequences - Britain’s place in the world
Thursday was a historic vote and the result must be respected. But our standing in the world is now being reviewed by our allies and Bashar al-Assad will take great comfort from the outcome, as will other dictators and would be despots around the world. There are few countries that have the resolution and courage to challenge such tyrants. Now there seems to be one less. Some may rejoice in this – and be pleased we have now become more insular. This makes me uncomfortable. We have earned a reputation for standing against what is wrong in the world – and other countries look to us to lead. In the past, we have rejected appeasement. Of course the country is right to be cautious in what is a complex civil war. However, the use of chemical weapons has been proven and is manifestly wrong. An isolationist Britain is a diminished Britain. We help shape history, not just watch it from the sidelines.
US position
US reaction following the British vote was surprise and disappointment. Britain and our closest ally rub shoulders in the diplomatic corridors, the clandestine world and much of the time on the battlefield. President Obama is no warmonger and runs a far more cautious administration than George W Bush. It would be impossible to imagine a previous President seeking support from Congress for such military action. Yet if passed (given the additional intelligence now presented) it will place pressure on the British Parliament to reconsider another vote.
Role of the UN
It is the same cause of failure which impeded the international community to respond to previous escalations in the civil war that prevents agreement from being reached today. The yielding of vetoes by permanent members of the Security Council has effectively neutered the UN’s role as senior arbiter for international peace. This should not prevent other concerned nations from stepping forward to do what is right. In 2005, the UN summit approved a motion obliging all nations to ‘protect its citizens’ and permitting an international response, superseding state sovereignty, if the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was broken.
One course of action which might be pursued is the use of General Assembly 377a which allows this bigger body to approve motions when there is deadlock in the Security Council. An example of this was the 1950 approval for UN involvement in Korea.
What next for Britain?
Whilst debate about a military response moves to Congress, Britain is now focusing on its lead role in providing humanitarian aid. Over 7 million people require assistance and the civil war is creating the biggest refugee crisis the world has seen. The UN has confirmed that a third of the Syrian population has been displaced. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has registered about 450,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey alone. Lebanon, with an original population of 4 million, has swelled by 1 million already. The natural population of Jordan has risen by 8% in 2 years due to the crisis. This has placed an enormous strain on the country’s resources. Tens of thousands of Syrian refugees are presently stranded on the Jordanian border, following the closure of the frontier in an attempt by the Jordanians to control the inflow of refugees. I give my upmost support to the Prime Minister, who has pledged to ‘lead the world’ in providing aid.
Conclusion
Thursday’s vote has been a wakeup call for Britain. It awoke ghosts from previous interventions and raised questions about Britain’s place in a modern world. It poses serious questions as to how the world responds to acts of genocide. The vote has effectively forced Britain to hit the pause button. However, does that mean that we have opted out of the arena? Action or inaction - History will judge us by our decisions.
If the international community can’t even agree on the tactics of response to the use of chemical weapons then we will struggle to agree a wider strategy for the region. For a new world disorder has the potential to unfold with Syria on the front line of what could become a wider religious conflict between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims across the Middle East – involving the West whether we like it or not.