The situation in Syria is deeply disturbing. I doubt anyone can view the abhorrent chemical attacks on innocent children and civilians without wishing to condemn such atrocities. Nevertheless, we are right to be cautious of past conflicts in the Middle East and learn the lessons from Iraq.
When Parliament was recalled last week I spoke to many constituents who asked me if I was intending to vote in favour of going to war. The posing of this question assumed that the vote in the Commons last week was about going to war. It was not. The motion specifically included a commitment that the House of Commons would have to have another separate vote to approve any military action in Syria. Last week’s vote was about a set of principles outlining the position the UK should take in condemning the atrocities in Syria, not agreeing to unilateral military action. In the days preceding the vote I phoned the Chief Whip to inform him that the Government would not have my vote if a motion to take unilateral action was put before the House; indeed I would have resigned my position in Government to vote against it.
I have previously spoken on the situation in Syria and made my own views clear: I do not support unilateral military action or arming the rebels. We have no security that this weaponry wouldn’t fall into the hands of Jihadist terrorists, Al-Qaeda affiliates or the host of malevolent rebels who are also fighting the moderate rebels opposing Assad’s regime. The situation in Syria is a complex and messy one. Fundamentally, my raison d’état is that pouring weapons into a conflict seldom brings it to an end – especially when we can’t be certain who we are arming.
I do believe it right that the Government adopted a position to deplore the use of chemical weapons and I am saddened that Parliament voting against this last week. There has been worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons since the First World War and there is certainly a role for the United Nations to investigate whether such weapons have been used and take proportionate action – not necessarily military – to prevent the further use of chemical weapons in Syria.
By the time the Prime Minister stood to make his statement to the House on Thursday, the motion had evolved to include the following:
- That the House: deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria;
- Welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus;
- Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy;
- Requires that any direct British involvement in Syria would require a further vote of the House of Commons.
This motion did not recommend that the UK Government enters military conflict in Syria now but recognised that there is a role for the UN in preventing further chemical attacks on innocent civilians.
Reading the text of the motion I would hope most people would agree that there is little in the text that can’t be agreed with. Shamefully, the result of the political games that were played by the Leader of the Opposition last Thursday was that Parliament sent a message to Assad that the use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians would not be challenged. This alone is incredibly
terrifying for our own national security – a precedent on this scale could have terrifying outcomes if states such as Iran choose to escalate the development of their nuclear weaponry without fear of consequences. Whilst Britain will not be taking any military action in Syria, we should carry on with our efforts on the international stage to put pressure on other UN Security Council members such as Russia to take a more proactive, diplomatic role in ending civil war in Syria.
The Prime Minister made history last week by ignoring his Royal Prerogative and asking Parliament for its view on the principle of dealing with the situation in Syria – leadership that has been swiftly followed by President Obama.
The Prime Minister has been clear: the United Kingdom will take no military action in Syria. We must learn the lessons of the Iraq war, work with the UN Investigators and under no circumstances must we take unilateral military action. These are principles I have held for many years and ones I will stick to in this matter. It is now vital that we engage in diplomatic negotiations to stop innocent children being slaughtered by the Syrian regime.