What her constituents are telling Dawn Butler on Syria bombings

As anti-war demonstrators throng outside Labour Party HQ and Jeremy Corbyn and Hilary Benn put their respective views to Channel 4 News on tomorrow's bombing vote it is worth looking at what Brent Central constituents have told Dawn Butler MP on her website survey.  The contributions appear to be running strongly against voting for bombing Syria.

Here are a few of the (unedited) comments from the 18 pages of comments on Dawn Butler's website LINK. Italics denote a new contribution:

The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

We should also reflect on the consequences of previous such interventions. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya continue, and terrorism has increased in all those countries, and many more, in the 14 years since they began.

Two years ago, Cameron lost a House of Commons vote to bomb Syria. Then he wanted to bomb Assad’s forces, but today he wants to bomb ISIS. The truth is that further bombing will do nothing to help the people of Syria. ISIS is a product of war, and has been helped to grow by Western allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

There is no comprehensive and clear EU plan in place to provide humanitarian assistance to the large number of refugees which will result from further bombing. In fact, the EU refugee plan is unravelling and the approach to refugees is highly fragmented. Nor is there a clear and unambiguous UN authorisation for the bombing of Syria.

Plans for military action are not subordinated to diplomatic efforts, but instead largely replace them. Also, it is not in practice possible to direct attacks solely at military targets. Evidence suggests that around 90% of drone strike victims are unintended casualties.

It is important that we learn from history. It is now widely accepted that Western interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had disastrous consequences. There is no reason to think that Syria will be any different.

 I am not satisfied that there is any evidence that bombing will destroy ISIS; I believe that there is a stronger case that it will harm innocent Syrians more than ISIS. Furthermore, there is no system in place to help Syria re-build, as Assad is terrorising his own people.

 The intervention proposed – to add the UK’s specialised bombing capabilities to the US, which has been bombing Raqqa for months, and France, which has also recently bombed “command and control facilities”, “weapons depots”, “training camps” etc in Raqqa is retrogressive, learns nothing from failed ventures in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and just adds to the sum of total misery faced by civilians there. Just how many “command and control centres” can there be in Raqqa and how is it the US and French etc are so poor in “degrading” them???
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been financing ISIL and offshoots of Al Qaida for years, but because monopoly capital here has too lucrative a relationship with the Gulf states, nothing would ever be done to destabilize that and they are allowed to continue unchallenged. Nor to upset Binyamin Netanyahu, ISIL’s chief recruiting sergeant in the Middle East.
The hypocrisy of Cameron and his cohorts is staggering.
There may well be a case for providing logistical and other support to existing fighters opposing ISIL, such as the Peshmerga in Kobane or the Yazidis in Sinjar, but bombing civilian populations or hoping to annihilate ISIL from the air is macho posturing of the “we must do something” school.

 I believe the root of the problem in Syria is Assad and that once he is removed, the people of Syria will be able to deal with ISIS. Their is no strategy to remove Assad, so no clear strategy on how to deal with the problem. Everybody seems to be aware that bombing will not bring about a solution and that ground troops are needed, yet this is not being proposed by the GOvt. In addition, the amount of bombing missions Britain can perform is negligible and will have very little military impact as a result, it is therefore morally unjustifiable given the almost certain likelihood of death to civilians.

 Islamic State represent an extreme and violent ideology which must be confronted. They will not be interested in any compromise, as they are directly opposed to everything about our way of life. It is vital that we join the international coalition and extend our action in Iraq to Syria too, as this is their main powerbase. The more we delay the confrontation, the harder it will be. The Labour Party has a proud history of standing strong against tyranny, and in this generation the fight is against the jihadist ideology. We must stand firm.

 I’m not a pacifist, so can consider military action as necessary. I am not sure bombing of Syria will be effective and stop Isis. To me it is slightly cowardly because the west is not prepared to put soldiers on the ground to help in the battle. More to the point does the west have a clear strategy once Isis is defeated? History suggests not. A vague idea to replace Assad is not good enough and a constant demand for free elections is a good idea but the west has to accept that elections don’t always go your way. 

To me the only way Isis will be defeated is by a ground war, supported by air power, a clear mandate from the UN, and a clear strategy for occupation, rebuilding and economic investment, and exit.
Finally the government has to say how it will pay for any military action. The history of government over the last 50 years is that we have wars but will not raise taxes to pay for them. I think a lot of people will take a penny on income tax if it increases our security.

 The terrible attacks which took place in Paris are being presented as a rationale for bombing. Yet there is no evidence that further bombing will defeat ISIS, and there is much evidence that it can make the situation worse.

We should consider that air strikes in Syria have been going on for more than a year now, carried out by a coalition led by the US. In that time, ISIS has maintained and even increased its size, despite a large number of its members being killed. In addition, most members of the coalition have effectively ended military action. None of the regional states is at present involved, Canada has pulled out and Australia has suspended its bombing. Only France, the US and Russia are currently involved in attacks.

The shooting down of a Russian plane by Turkey underlines the danger of the situation escalating out of control. This is not a time to start further military action.

 I was encouraged to read in the Kilburn Times that you are minded to vote against extending military action in Syria and I urge you to vote against the Prime Minister’s proposals.
I am sure that many people in Brent recognise that bombing Syria will recruit more young people to ISIS and increase the possibility of retaliatory action in the UK. It will also cause more people to flee their destroyed homes and country.
I hope you will have the opportunity to urge the government to learn from our interventions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and press them to work to strengthen those international institutions which contribute to peace.

 1. Bombing countries kills and displaces civilians, destroys the infrastructure, damages the mental health of all involved leading to fear and hate.
2. With so much emphasis on intelligence agencies mass surveillance, there should be a worldwide sharing of information to map out sources of funding for Isis, arms suppliers, customers buying oil from Isis in order take away/block funding, supplies, ability to sell oil and recruit.
3. Block ISIS’s communication channels, delete existing videos, photos, stop them communicating via Internet/satellite and mobile technology.
4. Focus on negotiated settlements between government and rebels. External supporters of government and rebel forces ( USA, Russia, France, UK, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Iran etc ) will need to let go of their own financial/power agendas and priotise fate of civilians.
5. There should be effective mechanisms in place hold media corporations (including the BBC) and individual journalists to account when they spread misinformation leading to hatred, fear and confusion. If there is evidence pointing to countries providing support to ISIS, having agendas for regim change, selling weapons, buying oil etc public should be made aware of it. There should be more coverage of unfolding human tragedy (refugees camps, refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, civian deaths in Syria as a result of all the bombing)
6. Information should be released to public regarding:
i)legality of bombing the Syrian government, providing support to, training, arming rebel groups that oppose the government. Are international laws being broken? What is the UN position.
ii)legal position with respect to action against ISIS in Syria, can anyone go and start bombing Isis in Syrian territory because they are worried about the Isis threat to their own country or people? Does America/France have a legal right to bomb Syria, do we, UK have a legal right to join them? Who else has this right?. I am assuming Russia does have a legal right to be there as they were invited in by government?
I ii)Where did ISIS come from, who are they, are they the result of action in the region(Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt). Would removing Assad from power have an impact on support for ISIS?
iv) who are producing/dealing the weapons being used? What roles are being played by those with financial links to arms producers and dealers in this conflict.
v)What are the views of Syrian people? Has anyone bothered to ask those left in the country and the millions displaced across the world.
7. Why has America and France been so heavily involved in this conflict for so many years? Were they fighting Syrian government or ISIS? What led to Russian involvement? Who in the region are involved – why and how? If those involved in bombing are only doing so to help Syrian people, doesn’t any other countries want to join in. How much money is being spent on this conflict – where is the money coming from? Why isn’t there enough money to help feed/support/look after civillians caught up in the conflict – but everyone seems to have plenty of funds to bomb and attack Assad and ISIL.
8. People should be supplied with unbiased facts and evidence. Governments should take views of civilian population into account before entering into military action/war.

 Bombing certain geographic locations will cause great loss of civilian lives and only provide more breeding ground for this terrorist group. IS is not a simple target that can be located in Syria. Instead the terrorist attacks of the last decade and a half have demonstrated that IS has infiltrated our society. Political intervention needs to continue and at a faster pace, not senseless bombing to give the illusion that politicians can protect the public in this way. Bombs are a blunt measure when we need these finances to go to different causes: intelligence to cut off IS funds as well as their weapon, oil and human trade, education to show an alternative, and creating a sustainable economy that will make joining IS unattractive.

Brent Central constituents have really risen to the occasion with many thoughtful comments. It is an exercise in democracy that should not be a one-off. 

Updated: No support for bombing Syria at Barry Gardiner's meeting with constituents

Barry Gardiner with Jeremy Corbyn on Saturday's Climate March

In a 20 minute cogent presentation in a North Wembley church hall last night, Barry Gardiner set out his thinking on the Syria air strikes issue. He said that he was not a pacifist and that sometimes military action was justified. He had voted for the Iraq war but later went on to criticise the lack of an exit strategy, was one of only 13 MPs who opposed the bombing of Libya, and had helped persuade a change of policy by Ed Miliband's Labour Shadow Cabinet on the earlier Syria intervention mandate.

Gardiner said that he had a duty to constituents to consider whether an extension of existing UK military intervention would be counterproductive.  He considered the legal basis for intervention on the basis of a request by a state to intervene in their defence. Assad had not made such a request. The British Government had recognised the opposition as the sole representative of the Syrian people.

He discussed whether the  'Self Defence' criterion under Section 51 of the UN Convention was met. Action has to be necessary and proportionate and demonstrated by the 'overwhelming  necessity' for force to be used.

Finally in discussing UN Security Council Resolution 2249 which states that ISIS 'a global and unprecedented threat' to global security' and calls on member states who have the capacity to take action against them, he concluded that it was not credible to argue that there is no legal basis for UK government action. However, the question was whether it was right to do so.

Countering David Cameron's argument that air strikes on Syria would add capacity to the campaign against ISIS , Gardiner said that the same amount of assets would be deployed but now deployed in Syria as well.  It would not amount to a 'significant' military contribution and according to experts was not a 'war winning campaign' by any stretch of the imagination.

British expansion of the existing intervention in the region may feed radicalisation and do more harm than good.

Explaining that he preferred to use the term Daesh LINK rather than Islamic State, as the latter gave the organisation credibility as a 'state' and illegitimately appropriated Islam as a whole, he suggested that bombing bombing might kill many innocent people without significantly harming Daesh.

A cartoon shared widely over the weekend

Gardiner argued that without ground forces the Government's position was one of 'more hope than intent'. Discussing the current forces on the ground in Syria he said that the US had given up trying to train them and were now concentrating on supplying weapons and ammunition. 'A foolish approach' considering the disparate forces involved.

Cameron's suggestion that there was a 'moderate opposition' numbering thousands was a 'falsification of facts'. There were thousands of fighting forces under arms with different aims and rapidly shifting
alliances.  According the the Select Committee Report  so called 'moderates' had been squeezed out.

 Gardiner suggested that British troops could join a multi-national ground force co-ordinated by thw UN but only in tandem with a diplomatic strategy.

Rather than extending existing action the Government should be contributing to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict through the Vienna Conference.

In discussion, although recognising the legacy of Colonialism and Imperialism, Gardiner denounced as 'infantalism' the argument that history justified Daesh's murderous actions.  Challenged on whether, if the Government came up with a more plausible strategy, he would come back to consult constituents in another meeting, Gardiner said that an MP was not a delegate, and a church hall of people was not necessarily representative of all constituents.  He would read all the reports that constituents were unlikely to have time to read, weight the evidence and reach a judgement which he felt was in all constituents best interests.

On the question of whipping Gardiner said that he would not deserve to be MP for Brent North if he did not follow his conscience on such an important issue rather than the party line.

Responding to a question on the funding and arming of Daesh, Barry Gardiner said that the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia needed to be rethought in the context of its export of its philosophy throughout the region. He said that Britain's involvement in the arms trade was a continuing problem, complicated by the fact that many jobs depended on it, but also needing to be tackled.

When discussion turned to what happened in Brent, Gardiner said that many in the Muslim community felt threatened by media coverage of the conflict. Leading figures in that community who spoke out powerfully against Daesh should be supported. We were fortunate that Brent is such a mixed community that no one group feels they can dominate.  He said that Labour had been critical of the Government's Prevent programme. It was a top down model rather than the bottom up approach that could harness forces at a community level. The thought that adolescent youth, at a stage in life when they were searching for their own identity,  could be inculcated with 'British values' was laughable. He was unable to attend the December 10th Prevent: Protectng Our Liberty?  meeting at the Interfaith Centre in Queen's Park because he would still be in Paris for the climate talks, but he welcomed the initiative.

No one at the meeting spoke in favour of the Government policy, or the approach of some in the Shadow Cabinet.  One woman who had been worried about what the 'French and Belgians would think of us if we did not support them' said that she had changed her mind during the course of the discussion.

The most moving speech of the evening was from an 8 year old girl who spoke eloquently about the bombing killing innocent people: 'It isn't right that some innocent people will be killed because of some bad people.'

Radio 4 Today report on the meeting is at 1.50 here LINK

Full transcript of Barry Gardiner's presenattion at the meeting HERE