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

Caroline Lucas: Why I oppose Government's motion on Iraq air strikes

Caroline Lucas spoke in the Parliamentary recall Iraq debate today:

Every vote I cast in Parliament weighs heavily on my mind, especially as, unlike most other MPs, I have no whip telling me what to do – I consider the evidence, reflect on the principles I was elected to stand up for, listen to my constituents in Brighton Pavilion.  

Never more so than on a day like today, when MPs are deciding whether to carry out air strikes in Iraq against the so called Islamic State (ISIL).

Whatever we decide people will die. Be it directly at the hands of ISIL, whose barbarity seems to know no limits. Or when they are hit by bombs dropped by the US, France or the UK

And, of course, people are dying as a result of the humanitarian crisis engulfing the region – the Refugee Council tell me it’s the first time since the Second World War that the number of people worldwide who are fleeing their homes is more than 50 million, and the conflicts in the Middle East are a key driver of this exodus.  The death toll from the crisis in Syria is heading towards 200,000. Getting aid to all Syrians and Iraqis in need must remain one of the UK’s top priorities.

Amongst the questions I have asked myself ahead of today’s vote is how best to help close down the cycles of violence, which are taking so many lives.

There are no easy answers. But there is this certainty: killing people rarely kills their ideas.

The hateful ideology of ISIL must be stopped but the risk is that air strikes will be counterproductive: every Western bomb dropped will fuel it anew, providing fertile recruitment, fundraising and propaganda opportunities.

I don’t think this is like the last Iraq war.  I don’t think that the Prime Minster is manipulating intelligence or lying to the House.

There is much in the Government’s motion with which I agree.  It is written in a measured and very reasonable-sounding tone.  But the considered, thoughtful tone cannot get away from the bottom line, which is to give permission for the UK to bomb Iraq. Nor can it mask that what is often called ‘precision bombing’ is rarely precise.  We should be under no illusion that we are debating whether to go to war.

With virtually everyone on the Government and opposition benches looking set to vote for air strikes, there is a real danger too that diplomatic and political solutions are side lined yet further – and possibly even made more difficult.

The real question should not be whether to bomb but how we can intensify work politically and diplomatically to address the fundamental hostility between Sunnis and Shias – with regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia centre stage and support for a fledgling new Iraqi government to deal with seemingly intractable problems like the failures of the Iraqi armed forces, sharing of oil revenues, decentralisation demands and territorial disputes a top priority.

Also uppermost in my mind, in a week where it’s been revealed that a young man from Brighton has been killed whilst fighting for ISIL in Syria, is that there is nothing Islamic about what this extremist group are doing. That as well as embarking upon a concerted effort to find a political solution to the current crisis, we must also redouble our efforts to tackle the radicalisation of some members of our communities, and redouble our efforts to address deeply worrying levels of anti-Muslim sentiment and incidents.

Our best hope of reducing the numbers radicalised would be to champion a new foreign policy doctrine based on clear principles, consistently applied.  This should not include selling arms to brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It should not include tolerating war crimes in Gaza.  We must stand up for international law.

Being the only Green MP can be lonely at times, especially on days like today. But my inbox this morning is full of messages from constituents urging me to vote against air strikes and I know that when I stand up and oppose the Government’s motion, I am representing the views of many.