I would like to thank the large number of constituents who have contacted me about UK involvement in air strikes against ISIL/Daesh in Syria – particularly those who have taken the time to set out their own views on this incredibly complex issue. Many have recognised that committing British troops to military action is one of the most serious and difficult decisions an MP will ever make, and it is within that context that I have taken a great deal of time to consider my position on this issue for which there are no easy answers. As I hope will be clear, I have thought very long and hard about this decision, having listened carefully to constituents’ concerns and considering all the information before me.
Indeed, as Shadow Attorney General, I have spent the last two months scrutinising in detail the legal arguments for extending UK air strikes against ISIL/Daesh into Syria. The UN Security Council Resolution 2249 – passed on 20th November – identifies the ‘unprecedented’ threat posed by ISIL/Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and calls upon Member States to ‘take all necessary measures’ to ‘prevent and suppress’ this threat. Whilst it does not explicitly ‘authorise’ military action under Chapter VII, it leaves no doubt about the political consensus around taking military action against ISIL/Daesh.
The Government has cited the self-defence of Iraq as the legal basis for extending its military action to Syria. Indeed, that is the basis on which the UK is already conducting air strikes in Iraq at the Iraqi Government’s request, and there has been no challenge within the International Courts. In the wake of the appalling terrorist attacks in Paris, where France came under armed assault from ISIL/Daesh, the collective self-defence of France also potentially provides an additional legal basis. Furthermore, given that ISIL/Daesh pose a direct and current threat to the UK, the individual self defence of the UK could be presented as a legal basis for the military action proposed. I am therefore confident that there is a clear legal basis and international political agreement for UK involvement in this action.
There are also a number of reasons for the UK to undertake military action against ISIL/Daesh in Syria, not least the pressing need to defeat an organisation which perpetrates the most unimaginable barbarism both in the territory over which it has control and in the acts of terrorism it commits elsewhere, whether in Beirut, Ankara or aboard a Russian civilian aircraft. Of course, UK citizens have been the victims of ISIL/Daesh atrocities – with just some examples being the 30 holidaymakers murdered on a beach in Tunisia, Nick Alexander at a Paris rock concert last month, or the British aid workers who have been beheaded. And, as the Prime Minister informed Parliament last week, our security services have disrupted at least seven ISIL-linked plots to attack the UK in the last twelve months alone.
I am therefore of the belief that we face a real and current threat from an organisation that has absolutely no regard for human life, human rights or international law, as well as from the unstable situation in Syria as a result of a long and bitter civil war that has created the conditions for ISIL/Daesh to thrive. As such, I agree that it is not acceptable for the UK to ‘subcontract’ our national security to others, and I do not think that taking action ISIL/Daesh in Syria will make Britain more insecure.
Secondly, the UK is already involved in air strikes against ISIL/Daesh in Iraq – at the invitation of the Iraqi Government – and there is an understandable view expressed that it would be illogical not to extend this to Syrian territory, particularly when those being targeted do not respect internationally-recognised borders.
And of course France, our friend and close ally, has urged the UK to join air strikes against ISIL/Daesh in Syria following the sickening attacks which took place in Paris last month – with the German Cabinet yesterday backing plans to provide military support for this action.
However, I also have very serious concerns about the action being proposed by the Prime Minister and indeed about the way in which this matter has been handled. I am particularly unhappy that – having finally presented his case to Parliament on Thursday – David Cameron has allowed for just one day’s full debate today before a vote takes place. I do not think this is appropriate for a decision of this gravity and complexity.
I also believe there remain a number of questions about the Prime Minister’s proposal for UK involvement in this military action which have not been satisfactorily addressed.
Firstly, as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee – and indeed David Cameron – have set out, air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat ISIL/Daesh. Ground troops are clearly also required for this task, yet it remains unclear to me who these will be in Syria, how many there are, to whom their loyalties lie and under whose direction they will be operating. Relying, or indeed depending, on them to complete the task at hand therefore represents a very high-risk strategy.
Secondly, whilst I acknowledge that the UK Armed Forces have some of the most precise and sophisticated weapon systems available, air strikes inevitably run the risk of innocent civilians being killed or caught up in targeted areas. I also do not think the Prime Minister has made clear how we would deal with the hundreds if not thousands of men, women and children who would inevitably be displaced.
Finally, I do not think the Prime Minister has set out a compelling overall strategy for what would take place post-conflict in a country that has already faced destruction and a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale which is difficult to conceive. We know that 12.2million people living inside Syria are already considered in need of urgent humanitarian assistance – how many more would require it as a result of UK involvement in air strikes? Who would fill the power vacuum left by ISIL/Daesh in Syria when defeated, and how does this fit with wider proposals for a negotiated, long-term political solution to the civil war?
As I said, this is a situation to which there are no clear or easy answers – nor is it a choice between deciding whether innocent civilians die or not. Innocent civilians in Syria are already dying and suffering appallingly in their millions, whether at the hands of ISIL/Daesh, or Assad. Whilst in Iraq, the recently discovered mass grave of Yazidi women murdered because they were ‘too old’ to be used as sex slaves – or the gay men who are thrown to their deaths from the tops of buildings – remind us of the nature of the organisation we are dealing with.
For these reasons, not to mention the many atrocities that ISIL/Daesh has committed against UK citizens and our allies this year alone, there is a clear and compelling case to be made for taking the fight to ISIL/Daesh in Syria. Ultimately, our goal must be to remove the threat this barbarous group poses to the people of Syria, as well as the UK and around the world. But, despite these proposals having been mooted by Ministers for some months now, the plan set out by the Prime Minister leaves some of the most important questions unanswered, which simply cannot be ignored or deferred for another day. Questions about who will finish the job on the ground, how we will protect Syrian civilians and what the plan is post-conflict for building an inclusive and stable society in Syria.
Without clear answers to these critical questions from the Prime Minister, I cannot support this action and therefore plan to vote against it today.