HearFromYourMP

Previous message | Messages for this constituency | Next message

Syria

Posted by Roger Gale, MP for North Thanet, at 14:11, Wed 28 August 2013:

I admire the simplicity of those who say that we should not engage in any military action of any kind arising from the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. I also respect those who, as pacifists, believe that all military action is wrong although that is not a view that I personally share.

I am, however, gravely concerned by the implications of possible US/United Kingdom/French "punitive" action against the Assad regime. That Syria's dictator is brutal is, I think, beyond question. That chemical weapons have been used in the course of civil war in Syria, by anyone at all, is in clear breach of all convention and cannot be allowed to go without response from the United Nations and the international community.

What is certain, though, is that any such response must be based first upon legality, must be proportionate and must be effective. There is no clear indication, to date, that those terms are satisfied. First, it is probable but by no means verified that Assad's government has perpetrated the atrocities. There is a considerable possibility that one or more of the Opposition groups operating in Syria, including Al Quaeda, might have initiated the attacks precisely to seek to draw Western powers into the active conflict.

Second, while the United Nations make provision for military intervention on humanitarian grounds there will be, without the support of Russia and China, no Security Council resolution upon which to base any such intervention.

Third, any military adventure requires a clear objective, clear terms of engagement and a pre-determined exit strategy. Again, I cannot see that any of those requirements are at present in place.

It is not possible to use cruise missiles to attack stores of chemical weapons or production facilities without the obvious risk of disseminating those chemicals into the atmosphere and without the further risk of agonising civilian casualties.

"Surgical" strikes against command and control facilities might have some limited deterrent effect but at what cost in human life and potential escalation of an already desperately dangerous situation?

It is said that the US and the United Kingdom do not seek "regime change". The perception has to be, however, that the West will have taken the Opposition side in a civil war. In whose interests? How can we be remotely certain that arms provided, or chemical weapons captured, will not then fall into the hands whose interests lie in terrorism and disruption of Western society?

We cannot claim that Blair's Iraq War has delivered lasting stability or peace. Our investment in blood and treasure in Afghanistan has been of questionable long-term value. Elsewhere, Libya remains torn by internal dispute and the Arab Springs of Tunisia and Egypt have unravelled.

When I, with many others, was persuaded to support Blair's government in voting for military action in Iraq I did so for two reasons; first, because our troops were effectively already committed and I do not see how parliament can send our young men and women to risk and give their lives on our behalf unless with our support; second, because we were given by Iain Duncan Smith as Leader of the Opposition, a clear undertaking based upon a briefing from Blair offered on Privy Council terms, that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed a real potential threat to the United Kingdom. We were all, of course, mis-led by the Prime Minister of the day. That experience has left with me deep cynicism about the veracity of "military intelligence" that may or may not have been adjusted to suit a particular political purpose.

We shall know, soon, the terms of the motion that will be put to the House of Commons tomorrow and in parliament we shall have the chance to hear from the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General. We shall, at the end of the day, then have the chance to exercise our judgement. Personally, I remain to be convinced that any intervention now will be other that too little, too late and ineffective.