Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn has set out her views on Syria in a detailed letter to a constituent. I reproduce it below. I have offered, via Twitter, Barry Gardiner MP Labour, Brent North, an opportunity to put his views but have heard nothing back so far:
-->
I am writing in response to your email about the
ongoing conflict in Syria, and in particular whether the UK should extend its
air strikes against ISIL into the region. I appreciate the gravity of this
issue, not least given Britain’s history
of military conflict in the Middle East, so I hope you will forgive a
substantive response reflecting the broad concerns you have raised.
To give some important background, the humanitarian
impact of the ongoing conflict in Syria has been catastrophic. Various
estimates suggest that since the civil war began in 2011, some 210,000-320,000
people have been killed, some 7.6 million have been internally displaced within
Syria, and a further 3.9 million have fled the country as refugees. This is the
worst humanitarian crisis in decades, and it is clear that many factions in
this conflict, not least the Assad
regime, are guilty of war crimes.
This is now a complex and fast-developing conflict
involving a range of internal factions, each of which have support from various
external actors. At present, reports suggest that Assad’s
grip on the country is weakening. He has lost control of half his territory,
having ceded lands in the west to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups; in the north to
more moderate opposition groups; and in the east to ISIL, who declared a
Caliphate stretching from Syria to Iraq in June 2014. No longer able to draw
revenues from Syrian oil fields, his regime has become dependent on financial
support from Iran and Russia; and Shi’ite
Hezbollah militant groups and Iranian Revolutionary Guards appear to be
becoming increasingly influential in his army. Regrettably, the recent
involvement of Russia, who are now launching air strikes against all of Assad’s
enemies, even moderate rebels, looks set to bolster his regime, increase the
death toll and, ultimately, prolong this bloody conflict even further.
As you will know, in August 2013, following the use of
chemical weapons by the Assad regime, there was a push on the part of the
British Prime Minister and the US to launch air strikes to support rebel groups
in the country. There were two important Commons votes on military intervention
in Syria. Although I was not an MP at the time, I would have voted against
these two motions. Whilst the US did ultimately initiate a programme of air
strikes in Syria, I was glad when Labour MPs joined with backbench
Conservatives and Lib Dems to ensure, against the wishes of the then-Coalition
Government, that the UK did not participate in these operations. Incidentally, I
also personally marched against the Iraq War back in 2003. I remain mindful to
this day of the tragic effects that this war has had on the people in the
region.
Since the vote in 2013, the situation has developed
even further. ISIL has emerged as a formidable and dangerous force in both
Syria and Iraq, and indeed in September 2014, Parliament voted in support of a
targeted international bombing campaign in Iraq to fight ISIL forces, in
support of Kurdish forces and the incumbent Iraqi government. Reports from the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) also suggest that
the Assad regime has continued its use of chemical weapons, launching chlorine
attacks in Syrian villages; and has also withheld a portion of its chemical
weapons stockpile, failing to report it to the OPCW. Efforts to broker a
peaceful settlement at the Geneva II peace conference in February last year
have also failed, in no small part because of al-Assad’s
intransigence.
In the House of Commons in July 2015, in light of the
continued conflict, the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon MP suggested that
Britain might consider extending its air strikes against ISIS to Syria, joining
the existing US operation there. Thankfully, the Defence Secretary has
confirmed that should the Government decide to push for military action again,
there would have to be another Parliamentary vote. Although the Prime Minister
went back on this plan some months afterwards, with the recent tragic terrorist
attacks in Paris, it looks like there may soon be another vote on this matter.
Were a Parliamentary vote indeed to take place, I
appreciate that I would have a very significant decision to make as your MP,
and I thank you for taking the effort to raise your concerns with me ahead of
this. Personally, I am concerned about some of the rhetoric people have been
using in support of intervention, and I will be pressing the Government to
explain more clearly their rationale for further military action. I have four
main concerns, which I have outlined below.
Firstly, I feel that neither the Government nor some
in the press quite appreciate the complexity of this conflict, and how the
situation has changed since the Parliamentary vote of August 2013. Indeed, in
my view, subsequent events have entirely vindicated the cautious, multi-lateral
approach of Parliamentarians during the vote in 2013. MPs at the time
highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between moderate and extremist
rebel groups, and warned that bombing strikes could intensify the conflict, the
later emergence of ISIL as a key force in the region only confirms this.
Indeed, it is curious that the renewed calls for air strikes are being
justified on the basis of a need to combat ISIL even though, in 2013, the
target was the Assad regime, the Government have refused to acknowledge this,
and many Ministers are conducting themselves as if we are to simply repeat the
vote of two years ago.
Secondly, and linked with this, I disagree with the
attempts of some Ministers and others to conflate this issue with the ongoing
refugee crisis. Military intervention against ISIL would not solve the refugee
crisis, if it could, it would have do already, as the US and others have been
bombing Syria since August 2014. Furthermore, the bulk of the displaced people
in Syria are the result of Assad’s attacks
and not those of ISIL bombing ISIL forces will do little to address this
problem. Regrettably, scant regard is also being given to the fact that as
significant as Syrian refugees are in the ongoing refugee crisis, they are not
the only source of refugees: last year, Britain accepted more asylum
applications from Eritrea and Pakistan than it did from Syria.
Thirdly, any action that is taken in Syria must be
multi-lateral, and pursued at a UN Level. I agree with Labour Foreign Secretary
Hilary Benn MP’s calls for a UN Security Council
resolution on Syria. He is also right, inclusive in this resolution, to push
for the referral of suspected war crimes to the International Criminal
Court, this should include Assad. As a
way of resolving this bloody conflict, I support the formation of a unity
Government in Syria comprising more moderate factions in the country. It is clear from their gruesome conduct that
neither ISIL nor Assad himself can play a part in this negotiated solution. But
the only way to secure this is if we work with our UN partners to achieve it,
and Hilary Benn was right to call on the Prime Minister to push for this at the
recent UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
Finally, there is an important humanitarian element to
the conflict in Syria, and I do not feel that enough is being done to help
those who should be the key focus of our concern: the innocent Syrian civilians
themselves. Whether they are still in Syria, have been forced to neighbouring
states by war or have made the treacherous journey into Europe, they are
deserving our help. I disagree with the Prime Minister’s
decision to opt-out of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees programme to help
the refugees in Syria, and also his decision to deny help to those refugees
already in Europe. I have written him a letter calling on him to reverse his
position on these twin issues. Hillary Benn MP was also right to call, as part
of the UN resolution, for the establishment of Safe Zones within Syria to
shelter those displaced by war and relieve the pressures on refugees.
Please be assured, therefore, that I will continue to
monitor this situation closely and update you on future developments. I will
press the Government on the need for humanitarian aid and a negotiated,
multi-lateral solution to the conflict in Syria, and challenge Ministers and
others on some of the points they have made in justifying military action. I
also remain ever mindful both of the consequences of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq,
and also the points raised by Parliamentarians at the important vote in August
2013.
Thank you again for contacting me regarding this
issue, and do not hesitate to get in touch should you have any further queries
or issues.
Best wishes,
Tulip Siddiq MP
Monday's meeting will be a little different. We will hear first-hand from an American and a British soldier, who are members of Veterans for Peace (UK), about the personal cost to them and their families, friends and neighbours of participation in these wars. Their voices are not heard as much as they should be and BStW has organised this special meeting so that Brent residents can hear directly from veterans about what war has meant for them, the conclusions they have drawn from their experience and their resultant activism.
