Britain, Syria and that Parliamentary Vote

My Views

At this point the world, including Russia and the Syrian government, has come to accept and admit that chemical weapons were used within Syria, it is simply a question of who used them. Many in the west believe that only the Assad regime had the capability and willingness to carry out such a large scale chemical attack and I agree with this. However, I wouldn't rule out the opposition making small scale attacks seem to be carried out by the regime in order to garner support from the international community.

          I am against the likes of the UK, US and France becoming involved in another country's civil war. However, a Syrian civil war and the use of chemical weapons are two separate issues and flies in the face of international law. As such, this use of chemical weapons cannot go unchallenged; it is simply a question of how and by whom?

          Whatever happens, I believe it should be with international support and backed with evidence from the ongoing UN investigation. Personally, I believe it should be up to the likes of Arab League and other regional powers to intervene or at least led any intervention that takes place. This wouldn't mean western countries not getting involved, but simply acting as back seat drivers. I also believe Russia and China should also have a play to part, if not militarily, through the use of soft power and putting diplomatic pressure on President Assad and his regime. So practically, what do I believe should be done?

          First and foremost, my first choice would be targeted and limited military action backed by evidence provided by the UN and preferably backed by a UN mandate. Agreed, the likes of Russia and China are likely to block any resolution sought through the UN Security Council. As such, for any chance of success, such a resolution should be sought through the UN General Assembly. This will provide such a resolution with a wider array of international backing and thus providing it with much greater weight.

          This military action should include as many countries as possible within an international coalition and preferably led by the likes of the Arab League and other regional powers. Furthermore, this military action should not include "boots on the ground", but limited and targeted missile strikes to take out Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons or at least the ability to launch them. Then countries involved in the military intervention should maintain missile launch systems in the region if stockpiles of chemical weapons are rebuilt either by the Assad regime or the opposition. This will directly contribute to the prevention of the use of such weapons again in the near future. It will also send a message to President Assad and any other leader who may consider the use of chemical weapons that the use of such weapons will not be tolerated by the international community.

          While preparations of the use of such military hard power are made, the likes of Russia and the Arab League should use their soft power and apply diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime. This diplomatic pressure is unlikely to change anything, but should at least be tried and will further justify military action if and when it's taken. This diplomatic pressure should continue even after the military strikes have begun.

          Simply, military action should only be used to prevent the use and stockpiling of chemical weapons and the ability to launch them, either by the Assad regime or the opposition. This should continue for as long as the risk of chemical weapons being used continue and should be coupled with diplomatic pressure provided by the likes of the UN and Russia. However, such a military intervention should not be tied to the Syrian civil war in general due to the war potentially lasting years, maybe even decades.

The Parliamentary Vote and its Causes

          In regards to any British involvement in such military action, the parliamentary vote against such action has put a stop to that, at least in the short term. This is unlikely to change unless something substantial changes the situation at hand.

          This parliamentary vote against the principle of military against in my opinion was the wrong one. However, my vote in favour of the principle of military action would be on condition that we first heard evidence provided by the UN's investigation on the use of chemical weapons and a second vote being allowed once this evidence had been heard.

          However, this need for a second vote in my mind makes the first vote lack any real use in practical terms. If Prime Minister Cameron had allowed for a single vote to take place after the UN investigation had published their findings, we may have seen a different result potentially leading to British involvement in military action. As such, part of the reason for the parliamentary no vote is Cameron's rush in holding such a vote before the UN published its findings and before all his MP's could return from the summer recess.

          A second reason for the vote is the legacy of Iraq and the mistrust that developed from this between the British public, MP's and the information provided by the government. This shadow of Iraq polarizes public opinion against any military interventions in which Britain is involved and develops a lack of trust in the "evidence" provided by government sources. This in my belief, though human nature, is the wrong approach and I believe any military intervention in Syria should be considered on its own merits.

          Another consideration is the role Ed Miliband played. Namely, his changing stance and his lack of leadership. During the two days leading up to the parliamentary vote, Miliband had no less than three different opinions. Now I respect people who are willing to admit they're wrong and are willing to change their opinions. However, Miliband's constant zigzagging shows a lack of authority and leadership on his part and shows how he lacks the qualities to be a good Prime Minister.

The Consequence

           We are yet to see the consequences of Britain's decision not to get involved in Syria, so what I say here is merely hypothesizing. However, in my opinion, British involvement doesn't necessarily have to be a military one. Now that such military involvement is off the table for now, the role falls to Britain to go on the diplomatic offensive, utilising its soft power bilaterally and on the EU and UN level. This may be in the form of intelligence gathering, garnering support in the UN General Assembly and seeking a diplomatic resolution to the on-going civil war. As such, no British military involvement doesn't necessarily mean no British involvement what so ever, just a different form of involvement.

          Now we have to consider what effect this vote may have on Britain's place in the world and its relations with countries such as the US and France. Well, I think it's still too early to tell and is entirely dependent on what happens next. As long as the UK remains actively involved in the international response to the Syrian crises, I believe the UK's relationship with the likes of US and France can be maintained. In addition, as long as Britain continuous playing a role at the heart of seeking a diplomatic resolution and getting the likes of the Russia on side, Britain's place in the world can still be maintained, but perhaps slightly reshaped and reformed. This includes Britain leading the diplomatic calls and utilising its soft power to coincide with and enhance the military might of America's hard power.

Conclusion

          To conclude, I believe Prime Minister Cameron should have waited until after more evidence has been gathered before calling for a vote in parliament. However saying that, I believe Cameron was right to bring the issue to a vote in Parliament and I support him in doing so. Based on the UN's evidence, I believe that military action should at least be considered, but only as far as taking out the chemical stockpiles and the ability to use them from within Syria. Furthermore, it should be with a legal backing. This is unlikely to be in the form of backing from the UN Security Council due to the likely vetoes of Russia and China, but may be in the form of backing from the UN General Assembly. Furthermore, such military action should be limited, targeted and not involved boots on the ground. It also should be led by the Arab world in the form of the Arab League, and be coupled with on-going diplomatic action to resolve the crises. Finally, those responsible should be brought to account before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the use of chemical weapons in the face of international law, whoever they may be.