REMINDER TONIGHT: How could UK Defence Policy Better Protect us? Brent Trades Hall 7.30pm

Refugee Resettlement: Just £2 donation from you will help Sufra win £1,000 of match-funding

From Sufra NW London

Sufra NW London is in line to win £1,000 of match-funding thanks to Lamyaa Hanchaoui, a spoken word poet, who is fundraising for our Refugee Resettlement Programme.
 
But we need YOUR help to win.
 
The charity that receives 250 individual donations wins. So please support Lamyaa by donating just £2 using on her fundraising page here. Just £2. No more.
 
[To be clear, it doesn’t matter how much you donate. It is the number of people who back us that will determine whether we win.]
 
If we win, we can help more people like Hiba, a refugee from Syria

This is what she says (translated into English):
 
“I came to this country from Syria a year ago with my husband and two daughters. After the start of the Syrian civil war, we fled our homes and lived in a refugee camp in Lebanon. The conditions were terrible. Thankfully, we were selected for resettlement in the UK as part of the Vulnerable Person Resettlement Scheme (VPRS).
 
I remember the first night that we arrived. It was cold and windy, and everything looked so different. As we entered our flat, we were greeted by staff and volunteers of Sufra NW London who brought us food, bedding and household supplies. We will never forget that.
 
Since then, the charity has helped us in so many ways – whenever we have a problem we know that we can call Sufra NW London. It is very hard when you do not speak the language and you do not understand local traditions and customs. With the help of Sufra NW London, I have started English classes and my husband has found a work placement with a local construction company.
 
We may never be able to return to Syria, but I am blessed that we have a new home in the UK.”

 
Support our Refugee Resettlement Programme with a donation of just £2 here.
 
To thank you for your help, Lamyaa Hanchaoui would like to gift you a track of her spoken word poetry on the Syrian refugee crisis, which is available here. You can also read more about her motivations for supporting our Refugee Resettlement Programme on her blog, available here. 
 
Final Call

Over 70% of tickets for Sufra NW London’s Fifth Anniversary Party on Thursday 26 April 2018 have disappeared! To avoid missing out, register here. I hear there’s going to be a chocolate fountain.
 

We need to talk about SYRIA - come along on Monday

From Brent Stop the War

Speaker Dr Anne Alexander
Co-ordinator, Digital Humanities Network, Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), University of Cambridge.

It is a hundred years since the Sykes-Picot agreement mapped out the extension of French and British control over areas of the Middle East which had, for hundreds of years, been part of the Ottoman Empire. The divisions that followed that agreement have influenced the subsequent history of the region culminating in the current complex situation of a war with multiple protagonists. Anne Alexander will give us an update on the tragic situation and its historical and political context.

Monday 12th December 7.30pm
BRENT TRADES HALL
375 High Rd, Willesden
NW10 2JR

Very close to Willesden Bus Garage, buses 6,52,98,226,260,266,302,460, and just five minutes’ walk from Dollis Hill Jubilee Line station

Details of a play about war and surveillance in the UK by one of our Brent Stop the War supporters: ISIS at Elmwood Theatre Club, Elmwood Lawn Terrace Club, Holland Road, NW10 5AJ : the Brent dates are 15-17 December 7.30pm DETAILS

Barry Gardiner joins Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet

Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, was reportedly booed by fellow Labour MPs yesterday evening when he had the temerity to speak up in defence of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. Corbyn has now appointed him shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Gardiner is my member of parliament and I have clashed with him many times, as well as agreed with him on some issues, such as the Prevent Strategy. I stood against him in the General Election before last as the Green Party candidate.

We share a concern about the environment and climate change and although our specific policies, not least on the major question of whether our current economic system based as it is on continuing economic growth is compatible with tackling climate change, may differ, I welcome his appointment as strengthening the Labour Party's approach to the issue.

This is what he had to say in a recently updated Huffington Politics LINK article that demonstrates his ability to analyse the political implications of resource competition.:

Exactly one week before the Queen’s Speech President Obama gave a speech - not in London, but in New London, Connecticut - to the United States Coast Guard Academy. He said: “I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country... And so we need to act - and we need to act now.”

He said that climate change would shape how every one of America’s services plan, operate, train, equip and protect their infrastructure, because climate change poses risks to national security, resulting in humanitarian crises, and “potentially increasing refugee flows and exacerbating conflicts over basic resources like food and water.”

Last summer I was critical in this House of the government’s decision not to provide financial support to the Italian government’s coast guard operation to rescue refugees from Libya. The Government’s responded to me then that such rescue operations acted as a “pull factor” and were only increasing the number of attempts. I thought it an obscene argument then and in the intervening months we have seen that it was not only obscene, but wrong. The numbers have increased. This Saturday the Italian Coast Guard announced that more than 4,000 migrants had been rescued off Libya’s coast in 22 separate operations in just one day.

We need to look deeper into why those migrants are coming in the first place. It would be convenient for me to point to the British and French air strikes, not to mention the failure to prepare a post-Gadhafi strategy that left that country in chaos. But I want to look deeper still into why the civil war started in the first place. It was part of a much wider pattern of regional upheavals that we called the Arab Spring that began in Egypt in 2010 with the uprisings in Tahrir Square.

If we track back those disturbances we come inexorably to the 2010 drought in Russia’s wheatbelt. It was the longest and most severe drought in Russia in over 50 years. The country lost 25% of its crop and it led Russia to impose an export ban on wheat that it had traditionally exported to Egypt. The food crisis in Egypt was the pre-curser to the Arab Spring. It was the same in Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world.

On the 9th September 2010 when the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation warned that Syria’s drought was affecting food security and had pushed 2-3 million people into “extreme poverty” few people took any notice. In fact Syria had suffered four successive years of drought: the longest and deepest failure since records began in 1900. The losses from these repeated droughts were particularly significant for the population in the northeastern part of the country, in Al-Hasakeh, Deir Ezzor and Al-Raqqa.

Small-scale farmers were worst affected — many of them not able to cultivate enough food or earn enough money to feed their families. Herders also lost 80-85 percent of their livestock. Thousands left the northeast and migrated to informal camps close to Damascus. Experts warned at the time, that the true figure of those living in “extreme poverty” was higher than the official 2-3 million estimate. What is astonishing in military terms is that nobody predicted in September 2010 that such a tinder box might give rise to civil unrest and civil war only six months later.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies is very clear on the impact of resource shortages. In 2011 they published a report claiming that climate change “will increase the risks of resource shortages, mass migration and civil conflict” and the MoD has said that it will shift “the tipping point at which conflict occurs”.

The degradation of natural resources such as forests and freshwater has removed much of the resilience that societies formerly enjoyed. And what is perhaps equally disturbing is that we are beginning to see evidence that efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change by some countries can actually shift increased risk onto others.

Climate change brings pressures that will influence resource competition between nations and place additional burdens on economies, societies and governance institutions around the globe. These effects are threat multipliers. They will aggravate those things that lead to conflict: poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tension. If Britain is to play a positive role in the world then this must be understood by our military and we must adapt.

We as politicians have to understand that the greatest threats to our security are no longer conventional military ones. You cannot nuke a famine. You cannot send battleships in to stop the destruction of a rainforest. But you can spend money on clean technology transfer that enables countries to bring their people out of poverty without polluting their future. You can invest in adaptation measures that will protect communities from the effects of climate change that are already placing their societies under stress.

'Straight Outta Syria' young rappers tell it how it is

From 'A World At School'
 

Samir, Abdulrahman and Mohamed are brothers who share a passion for music.  We can help share their story, their talent, and their potential.

But without education, the potential of hundreds of thousands of talented young Syrian children, refugees of the conflict, risks being lost.

Their potential needs your support: back our petition LINK  to secure the funding necessary to get 1 million Syrian refugee children into school - and back their futures.

Sign today and we’ll take your message to world leaders at the the Syrian Donors Conference in London in February.

Every child has potential - and every child deserves the chance to realise it. 

To world leaders: 

Please do what’s needed to ensure that Syrian refugee children can go to school, fulfil their potential, and build a peaceful future for themselves and their country. Give Syrian children hope. 

Shahrar Ali: It's not about Corbyn or Caroline - it's about Cameron's War

Shahrar Ali, Deputy Leader of the Green Party, speaking at 'Stop Bombing Syria' Downing Street demonstration yesterday.

Brent councillors join criticism of Stop the War Coalition and Lucas steps back from involvement

Brent Labour councillors Neil Nerva, Bernard Collier and Sam Stopp have signed an Open Letter to Jeremy Corbyn launched today by a new organisation called Labour Internationalists.

The letter LINK urges Corbyn to pull out of the  Stop the War Coalition dinner he is due to attend on Friday and states;

We believe that StWC stands apart from the Labour movement’s values of Internationalism, anti-fascism and solidarity. The vast majority of Labour MPs who heard Hilary Benn’s powerful speech in parliament last week (regardless of how they voted), supported his broad argument that fascism must be defeated, and that the UK must be prepared to join coalitions to do this.

and concludes:

We urge you to distance yourself from this organisation. We believe that Labour Party unity, and electoral credibility in the face of a Conservative government that is pursuing a right wing domestic agenda, would be advanced if  you pulled out of this event.

Meanwhile it was announced today that Caroline Lucas, Green MP, had stepped back from her involvement with Stop the War Coalition a few weeks ago.

The spokesperson said:

Caroline stepped back from the Stop the War Coalition a few weeks ago. Her busy parliamentary and constituency schedule means that she doesn’t have time to fully engage with the role of a Patron and, in light of some recent StWC positions that she didn’t support, she felt standing down was the responsible thing to do. Like the Stop the War Coalition, Caroline is opposed to British bombing in Syria because it will neither keep Britain safe nor help bring about a lasting peace in Syria.

Caroline was specifically troubled by some Stop the War Coalition statements after the Paris atrocities. Though the pieces were subsequently taken down she felt unable to associate herself with them. 

She was also concerned that some Syrian voices were not given an opportunity to speak at a recent meeting organised by the StWC in Parliament.

StWC has played an important role in building the anti-war movement in Britain, and Caroline will continue to work in support of peace.

That view is not necessarily the view of the Green Party as a whole. Policy is made at its twice yearly conference rather than by its MP or leader.

Many Green Party members support the StWC through attending its demonstrations and meetings, although this is not uncritical support.

Shahrar Ali, Green Party Deputy Leader,spoke at the Stop thr War 'Don't Bomb Syria' demonstration at the end of November. LINK

Whatever criticisms we can make, Stop the War Coalition remains the single strongest anti-war organisation in the country and I don't doubt governments, both Labour and Tory, would have engaged in more military adventures if it had not been for StWC's ability to mobilise large numbers in opposition.

Stop the War, as its name states, is a Coalition, and contains people of many different parties, religions and philosophies and is a vital part of a movement that challenges increasing aggression and militarism. It has come under attack from media and right-wingers as a means of undermining its fundamental challenge to the flimsy basis of  Cameron's.

At such a time they deserve our support.

Lucas differs from Labour Internationalists in her anti-bombing position. She said in a recent Huffington Post article:

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister make his case for why the UK should join the bombing campaign against Isis. The debate in the House of Commons was thorough, and the horror and revulsion at recent atrocities in Syria, Paris, Beirut and elsewhere is shared by MPs from across the political divide. 

Yet I have still to see any evidence to suggest that UK bombing Isis targets in Syria is likely to increase our security here in Britain or help bring about a lasting peace in the region in question - to the contrary, the evidence appears to suggest it would make matters worse.

Nerva, Collier and Stopp appear to be supporting military intervention, if not the bombing operation itself.

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. 

Lucas: 'Burning desire to act' must not ignore consequences of recent interventions

Caroline Lucas has published a piece on Huffington Post stating that she will not vote for bombing Syria LINK.

This is a key extract:

It's critical that the burning desire to act, to stop terrorists and keep us all safe, doesn't result in an approach that ignores the evidence of our recent interventions in the region - or their consequences. The civilian death count from the Iraq war and its aftermath is at least 147,000 and, according to Barack Obama, the resulting instability laid the ground for the rise of Isis. Post-Gadaffi Libya, which also has British fingerprints all over it, is witnessing Isis forces gaining power too. Isis thrives in the chaos brought about by Western intervention, which is why the unintended consequences of the 'War on Terror' must serve as a stark warning to anyone thinking of supporting airstrikes in Syria.

But let's be clear: the choice we're facing is not between military intervention and inaction. The Government can and should play a role in brokering peace and stability in the region. The Prime Minister could start by redoubling his commendable efforts to find an urgent diplomatic solution. Given that Isis flourishes where chaos reigns, renewed effort needs to be made to end the Syrian civil war The talks in Vienna are a start, but the process must be accelerated and continue to involve all proxies to the war. That diplomatic effort must also extend to Iraq, where the Abadi Government must be encouraged to reach out to the neglected Sunni minority - especially in those parts of the country where Isis is recruiting.

The British Government should also immediately suspend British arms sales to the Middle East and commit to a foreign policy that is consistent as well as ethical, particularly when it comes to our relations with countries that undermine human rights.

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

The Green Party's Shahrar Ali calls on Labour MPs to support Corbyn and vote against bombing of Syria

Shahrar Ali spoke for the Green Party and thousands of others at Downing Street today when he called on Labour MP's to support Jermey Corbyn and vote against the Government's plans to bomb Syria.

On Thursday Hampstead and Kilburn Constuency Labour Party passed the following resolution:

“This meeting of Hampstead & Kilburn CLP opposes the move to authorise the bombing of Syria, gives its support to the Party leader in this and encourages our MP and the whole of the PLP to vote against should the Prime Minister bring the issue to a vote.”

There were 35 to 40 people present and the motion was passed with none against and 8 abstentions.

Vote NO to British airstrikes in Syria - join the demonstration today

DON'T BOMB SYRIA DEMONSTRATION SATURDAY NOVEMBER 28TH 

12-2PM DOWNING STREET

Next week MPs are likely to vote on whether the UK should carry out airstrikes on ISIS in Syria. The Green Party stands united on this issue – dropping bombs is not the answer.

Sign this petition urging MPs to vote against British bombing in Syria: http://bit.ly/1Ncy6WK

We cannot ignore recent history and the consequences of our previous military intervention in the Middle East. The government has not given clear answers to questions over how British airstrikes in Syria will increase our security here in Britain or help bring about peace in the region.

Instead of escalated military invention we need to step up our diplomatic efforts to choke off ISIS's finances, weapons, and recruitment. We should also suspend British arms sales to the Middle East and keep to our commitment on taking in Syrian refugees.

 If you'd like to know more about why we're against bombing Syria Caroline Lucas was on BBC PM yesterday explaining why she'll be voting no, you can listen to that here: https://t.co/RjTe5rd8XV (about 39 minutes in).

There is a protest tomorrow in London where Shahrar Ali Deputy Leader Green Party will be speaking. Details here, feel free to share details of local events also: https://www.facebook.com/events/1520504624933948/

Barry Gardiner to hold Sunday public meeting on Syria bombing proposal after claiming PM's position 'flawed'

The Brent and Kilburn Times LINK reports that Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North, has organised a meeting on Sunday to hear constituents' views on the Government's proposal on the bombing of Syria.

The meeting is at 7.30pm on Sunday afternoon  at St Cuthbert's Church, Carlton Avenue West, North Wembley  Directions LINK

Barry Gardiner told the Kilburn Times:

I challenged [the Prime Minister] on his plans because I don’t believe he has yet justified them.

I still feel his position is flawed and don’t believe important questions have been adequately answered.

Any course of action must, in my view, improve the situation for people in Syria and protect Britain from the threat of terror.

I don’t believe anyone wants to see troops on the ground but air strikes alone will not be effective – and we have not been presented with a viable alternative.

So, as it stands, I am not prepared to support the prime minister’s proposals.

This is such a critical issue and decisions we make have the potential to impact so many lives – that I think it is only right to hold a public meeting to listen to the views of my constituents.

Tulip Siddiq outlines her concerns on Syria bombing

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