Don't bomb Syria - weaken ISIS by cutting off its funds and arms supplies

I am publishing this letter to Dawn Butler from local activist Sarah Cox as a Guest Blog in the light of Dawn Butler's call for constituents to give her their views on the bombing of Syria. Butler's poll is HERE

 I have just sent this email to Dawn Butler. Please email her too. You can do it through the Stop the War Coalition website Home or write your own email LINK
 
Dear Dawn Butler,

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply to my previous email to you about the possibility of Britain joining in the bombing of Syria. I would like to ask you to consider again how dangerous and indeed counterproductive such a course of action would be.

I am sure you agree that policy decisions should be evidence based, not the result of knee jerk reactions or simply about this country's position in the world, so I am asking you to consider the following facts:

The US has been bombing ISIS positions for a year now and far from reducing the number of ISIS fighters or the area of land they control, both have increased. In fact it has been argued by some Middle East experts that US bombs act as recruiting agents for ISIS.

The bombing and invasion of Iraq did not bring peace and stability to that country, in fact ISIS was born out of the divisions in Iraqi society introduced by the US sponsored Iraqi government.
The bombing and occupation of Afghanistan have not brought peace or stability to that country, nor did NATO forces succeed in their stated aim of eliminating the Taliban, which still controls large parts of the country.

Allied bombing of Libya has not brought peace or stability to that country, in fact it has resulted in the creation of a chaotic failed state in which ISIS is able to recruit and organise.

Only today we learn that Turkish forces have shot down a Russian plane, claiming it was over Turkish airspace, while Russia insists it had not left Syrian airspace. How sensible is it to send more planes into the already crowded airspace over ISIS positions in Syria?

There are up to six million civilians living in the areas under ISIS control. Do you seriously believe that US, French, Australian, Jordanian, Russian and, if this country joins in, British bombs can distinguish between innocent civilians and ISIS supporters any more than the bombs dropped on Dresden (arguably a war crime by today's standards) did between Nazis and ordinary people suffering under Nazi rule?

Can there be any justification for dropping bombs on ISIS because they behead and inflict other barbarous punishments on the people in the areas they control, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia and other states which also behead and inflict barbarous punishments on people living in their countries? Saudi Arabia does behead people publicly, contrary to what David Cameron says, earlier this year they advertised for eight more executioners and recently sentenced a Sri Lankan woman domestic worker to be stoned to death, yet Britain regards Saudi Arabia, which arms and supports ISIS as a friend and ally.

Surely Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that the priority must be to cut off funding, support and arms supplies to ISIS and to seek a political solution to the immensely complex situation in Syria?

As for the threat of terrorist attacks in this country, I believe that indiscriminate bombing and increasing Western intervention in the Middle East make these more likely and that cuts to police funding will make us less safe. At the same time, a climate of rising Islamophobia, cuts to youth services and policies like the Prevent strategy that seek to silence debate about foreign policy or issues like Palestine could increase disaffection among young Muslims.

Thank you for taking the time  to read this. Please vote against further bombing of Syria and support policies that weaken ISIS by decreasing or stopping its funding and its arms supplies.

Yours sincerely,
Sarah Cox

Dawn Butler asks for constituents view on bombing Syria & reminder of Tulip Siddiq's stance

This has appeared on Dawn Butler's website:

You can find the above poll HERE

Here is a reminder of what Tulip Siddiq said during the General Election campaign:

Greens warn against Paris attacks dictating policy on refugees

As Paris mourns its dead and cares for its wounded after the hideous weekend attack, the Green Party says it is important to ensure that we do not act in ways that fuel ISIS and terrorism.

Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett said:

There is a real risk that amongst the outcomes of the heinous attacks in Paris will be increased fear and division, the stirring up of Islamophobia and an impulse to retreat from the compassion and support with which Europe has so far met those fleeing ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

ISIS does not want to see that compassion, inclusion and displays of fraternity.

While sensible screening measures and checks need to be maintained; to cut off escape routes for desperate people fleeing war and persecution would only play into ISIS's hands.

We cannot let the actions of a handful of extremists dictate our response to the ongoing refugee crisis. The Green Party will resist calls to reduce Britain and Europe's access to refugees and are redoubling our calls for Britain to welcome its fair share of the refugees reaching Europe.

We also want to acknowledge and highlight the way in which so many communities around the world live with regular similar atrocities, including attacks in Beirut, Ankara, Baghdad and Kabul. And we need to note that the actions of Turkey in attacking Kurdish communities fighting ISIS within Syria have been disastrous, damaging, and deserve the strongest condemnation.

Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson, Tony Clarke said:

The killing has to stop and world leaders must find a way forward that defeats ISIS using the weapon that these terrorists fear most of all, peace talks.

There were signs over the weekend that those talks may now have some new foundation and I would encourage presidents and prime ministers to recognise that the drones cannot provide a solution and pick up the phones and find a way of halting this never ending circle of death.

Brent Council willing to take in at least 50 Syrian families 'if necessary'

Leader of Brent Council Muhammed Butt has told the Kilburn Times that the Council is willing to take at least 50 Syrian families into the borough LINK

However his comments were short on detail of how this would be done.

He told the Times:

It’s incumbent upon us to make sure that we do help the people who are in need.
I’m looking to take in 50 families if necessary, I have no problem with that and if we need to increase it we’ll wait for the announcement from the government about the resources open to us.

He said it was too early to say how the refugees would be settled in and housed.

What we need to do first is make a plan, we need to get our partners on board and that the council and the departments are working together so that we can identify the areas of need.

I‘ve had conversations with officers about starting to take the appropriate measures to support people coming in.

He went on to say that there was some time as “people will not be coming in tomorrow.”

At the time of writing 351 residents had signed an on-line petition calling for Brent to admit 50 families LINK

The petition was publicised on Wembley Matters and social media over the weekend. LINK

Petitioners call on Brent to home 50 refugee families

A petition has been set up asking Brent Council to home 50 refugee families in Brent. The justification for the request states:

Why is this important?

Aylan, the toddler who drowned fleeing Syria, was just three years old. His town was under attack by Isis. His five year old brother and his mum also died trying to reach safety.

Yet our prime minister has just said ‘we won't take any more refugees’. He thinks that most of us don't care. But 38 Degrees members do care. We don't want Britain to be the kind of country that turns its back as people drown in their desperation to flee places like Syria.

So let's stand up for Britain's long tradition of helping refugees fleeing war. Let's show the Prime Minister that we, the people of the UK, are proud to do our part and provide refuge to people in their hour of need.

The petition can be found HERE

50 families is a comparatively modest request compared with the thosands of Ugandan Asians admitted in 1972 as Iain Roxburgh reminded us in Friday's Guardian (and Ken Livingstone on BBCR4 'Any Questions?'):

-->

We don’t have to look as far back as the kindertransport to find an example where we have done it before and welcomed large numbers of refugees in a short space of time and on a far greater scale. I was a councillor in the London borough of Brent and vice-chair of the housing committee when the borough received over 10,000 Ugandan Asian refugees in under six weeks in 1972. Similar numbers went to Leicester, also with a settled East African community. With the settled East African Asian community and local voluntary organisations, Brent council worked up a plan for coping with the influx, including a shopping list of demands, which we presented to the Heath government. After a meeting with ministers, chaired by the home secretary, all these demands were met, including houses in multiple occupation and immediate funding for new schools, local health, social services and local advice and community support services.

Perhaps most challenging, then and now, is handling the politics of migration and harnessing the generosity and human empathy of our settled communities. After consultation and with the cooperation of the local media, we took an openly welcoming approach to the borough’s new citizens, who have gone on to contribute so much to the economy, culture and vibrancy of the borough over the last four decades.

Tulip, Dawn and War

Prior to Ed Miliband's speech today there had been press comment that foreign policy had played little part in the General Election campaign. Here is Brent we did have a cross-Brent hustings on War, Peace and the Middle East where some of these issues were raised. LINK

'Unintended consequences' of military intervention is as pertinent to Labour as it is to the Conservatives given Blair's intervention in Iraq. What is suprising to me is the lack of comment on Chilcot and the decision to put it on the back burner until after the election. Surely the findings should have formed a centre piece of this General Election?

At the hustings Tulip Siddiq (Labour candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn)  gave specific undertakings about war and said that she had voted for Ed Miliband precisely because David Miliband was too associated with Tony Blair and the Iraq War.

Dawn Butler was not invited to that particular hustings but was asked about her views at a subsequent election meeting. She said she had been against the war in 2003 and had voted against an inquiry in June 2007 because she thought it would have impacted on the British troops that were deployed in Iraq at the time.

This is the motion that Dawn Butler voted for. Only 8 Labour MPs voted against.

  This House, recognising that there have already been four separate independent committees of inquiry into military action in Iraq and recognising the importance of learning all possible lessons from military action in Iraq and its aftermath, declines at this time, whilst the whole effort of the Government and the armed forces is directed towards improving the condition of Iraq, to make a proposal for a further inquiry which would divert attention from this vital task

Earlier in 2006 she had asked Tony Blair a question in the House of Commons which seemed to indicate some disquiet about policy in Iraq.

Butler was subsequently seen as a government loyalist. She seconded the Queen's Speech in November 2007 and became Assistant Chief Whip in September 2008.

Attending the hustings in Brent there have been a number of occasions when candidates have been asked if they would defy the party line (and the party whips) on issues of principle. It is clearly an issue that concerns local people and the shadow of Iraq, it seems to me, is behind much of that concern as Iraq and the war figured quite large in the Brent Central battle between Dawn Butler and Sarah Teather.

Butler's Green challenger in Brent Central, Shahrar Ali, has claimed in his election material that he, rather than Dawn, is Teather's natural successor as far as issues of war and Israel-Palesrtine are concerned.

Over in Hampstead and Kilburn, Tulip Siddiq is challenged by Green candidate Rebecca Johnson, who has a long and distinguished record in the peace and disarmanent movement and is a member of Women In Black.  LINK

Footnote: In case you are wondering, Barry Gardiner, speaking in 2003 after Robin Cook resigned over Iraq stated: 'The Prime Minister has behaved with absolute integrity' but had a different position by 2011 over Libya:  LINK

BBC June 7th 2011

Amid growing unease about Nato's role, MPs are expected to press for a statement on Libya on Tuesday when Parliament returns from its 10-day recess.

Although he voted for the Iraq invasion in 2003, Mr Gardiner says the parallels between the two situations are "ironic".

"Every single argument that has been used over the last eight years to decry what happened in Iraq is being used to justify - with much less justification - what is going on in Libya," he argues.

Despite the frequent military interventions of the Blair years, he believes Labour should be looking further back into its history for its foreign policy principles.

"There is a historic role for Labour that is not being followed through here - as effectively an anti-war party that recognises war is the worst option and something that should be avoided becoming embroiled in at all costs."

And while in no doubt about the nature of the Gaddafi regime, he worries that the current intervention sets a worrying precedent for the future.

"The danger is we are being drawn into a position, in terms of what we should be doing internationally, of it 'does not matter because it is only Gaddafi'."

Jean Lambert: Ongoing EU-funded search & rescue programme needed in the Mediterranean

A ten-point action plan has been revealed by the European Union in the wake of large-scale loss of life in The Mediterranean, promising to both increase control as well as rescue operations. The European Commission said the plan, approved by EU Foreign and Interior ministers at an emergency meeting in Luxembourg, will be presented at a summit today, Thursday the 23rd. Commenting, Jean Lambert, Green MEP for London said:

It could not be clearer that immediate action is needed to prevent further loss of life. We need an ongoing EU-funded programme for search and rescue of refugees because individual governments can no longer cry crocodile tears while at the same time refusing to support rescue missions. We must of course work to combat despicable smugglers, but acknowledge that desperate people take desperate measures. What worries me about this plan is the focus on smugglers and on return programmes. It looks as if we are just pandering to fears instead of really getting to the root of the problem.

No-one should be fooled, FRONTEX is border control, not a rescue operation. Unless Libya and Syria can experience prolonged stability people will continue to do what they have always done throughout history: try and reach safety. While the EU is not above criticism, it is our own Government that decides the level of support for the Italian Government.

The European Parliament will have a co-decision role on any proposal to adapt the EU budget, and Greens call on all political groups to consider this in the ongoing negotiations on the 2016 EU budget and put pressure on the European Commission and EU governments.

Next week the plenary agenda of Parliament in Strasbourg will include a formal  Oral Question ( for which Jean was a co-signatory) with Council and Commission statements on the situation, Jean concluded:

We need a common European approach based on solidarity and humanity. The overwhelming majority of refugees are not in the EU: if Germany had the same proportion of refugees as Lebanon, there would be more than 20 million to support. The real crisis here is for those seeking sanctuary, not for the EU.

Scott Bartle launches positive campaign to win Brent North for the Greens

Scott Bartle

Brent Green Party today announced that Scott Barttle has been selected to fight the Brent North seat for the Green Party in the 2015 General Election.
 

Scott holds registration as a positive behaviour psychologist and works within the NHS. He lives in Mapesbury Ward Brent, where he stood as Green candidate in the 2014 local elections and gained 8% - one of the highest results for an individual Green Party candidate in the constituency.

Explaining his decision to stand Scott said:

As a Cornishman raised in one of the most deprived areas of the UK and Europe I am acutely aware of the human impact that poverty can have as detailed in the ‘horror’ statistics. It was no surprise that the regional areas of Britain were increasingly turning away from the three main parties as they have experienced neglect since Thatcher, perpetuated by Blair, and continued by the coalition.

It was also no surprise that in Brent, one of the most deprived areas of London, we have people turning away from the UK government and mistakenly thinking that their values are represented by elements in Syria. When people are alienated from the society they live in, there is only so far that they can be pushed. It’s been said that the apocalypse won’t come like lightning, but gradually like a fog. Mostly, successive governments have managed to avoid the ire of the public in perpetuating the agenda of their corporate donors but the fog is starting to become visible around us.

Whilst this fog may be pollution, as our government is being taken to court by the EU for London’s  poor air quality - we know only the Greens will protect our environment.

When Labour started the erosion of civil liberties and now the Tories pledge to repeal Human Rights legislation – we need the Greens to lead the resistance. 

When Labour sought to channel public money out of the NHS through Private Finance Initiatives that we are still paying now – we need a Green to look at the long term.

As studies reveal 50% of people receiving social care in Brent feel unsafe, we need to stop allowing private equity companies to funnel profits off-shore when they’re failing in their primary duty – Greens care.

When our foreign policy, rendered inconsistent by our colonial past is still causing conflict across the world and giving cause to recruit people from our own communities – we need a Green to challenge that. 

When the economic policy of ‘austerity’ advocated by Conservatives and Lib-Dems is an irreconcilable failure and Labour pledge to continue it  - the fog envelopes us. 

Nobody actually wants all of this – it’s why it is vital we look for an alternative. 

As Parliamentary Candidate for Brent North I will seek to highlight that Greens can provide something for people to vote FOR, rather than against – a real choice.

Through saying YES to Human Rights, YES to a consistent foreign policy, YES to Economic Change, YES to Public Services, YES to Environmental Action, YES to Green Jobs we are saying YES to a sustainable future for people, nature and wildlife worldwide

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.

Natalie Bennett's New Year video message

Brent Labour debate the Syria issue

Yesterday evening outside the US Embassy

After attending yesterday's protest calling on the US not to mount a military attack on Syria, I went o to the Labour Party's Public Meeting on Syria in Queen's Park.

All was not unity outside the Embassy with Assad and opposition supporters clashing verbally and there was disagreement too in Queen's Park.  The Labour meeting had been planned well before the heightened tension caused by the use of chemical weapons and the parliamentary vote and it turned out to be a calm and well-informed debate with passion breaking through only occasionally.

Cllr James Denselow who writes on the Middle East, completed a Ph.D in Syria and lived there for 3 years before the regime became 'uncomfortable' with his studeis and banned him from the country.

He described his experience of the country as quiet and safe for tourists but dangerous for  opposition. It had higher numbers of secret police per head than the former Soviet Union.

He said that the Arab Spring had taken previously 'coup proof' regimes by surpise with the rise in food prices being the catalyst for unrest. This meant that the regimes could offer 'neither bread nor freedom'. The young were revolting not merely against their rulers but against the 'owners' of the state.  Syria is a case of the failure of the expectations, of revolution with the opposition united by what they are against rather than what they are for.

With damage to the country amounting to £11b and mounting, the regime only in charge of 45% of the country and 10 million likely to be dependent on aid by the end of the year, the situation is extremely serious.

John Lloyd of the Financial Times spoke next opening with the statement that he agreed with Michael Gove's view, although not how it was expressed, on the rejoicing of MPs after the House of Commons vote. It was a curious vote, which nobody won, and should be revisited. Llopyd said the international situation was unstable with the euphoria of the Arab Spring gone, 20-30 states developing or have developed chemical or biological weapons and nuclear instability  especially over possession of nuclear weapons by Indian and Pakistan.

He likened the situation between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East to that which prevailed in the past between Catholic and Protestant in Europe.

On statements from Labour that the issue may be revisited if something 'huge happens' he said, 'What hugemess are we waiting for. It has happened already.' Countries are trying to uphold international agreements on the use of chemical weapons and we can't let their use become normalised.

Ivana Bartoletti, London Labour Euro 2014 candidate and deputy director of the Fabian Women's Network, spoke from a background of experience in European and international politics. She quoted an old saying, 'Never light the fire when the wind is blowing: you'll get burned'.

She said that Syria was a critical issue with the geographical closeness of Israel and Syrian Kurds beginning to flee to Kurdish regions and the number of refugees in Bulgaria. Bartoletti believed that Labour's amendment was right but that this didn't mean that the UK couldn't intervene in other ways.

Options in Syria are never easy, a campaign for  democracy had turned into a civil war and then a religious war. She was concerned about what would happen internationally if the US attack Syria and believed that the G20 talks gave an opportunity to put the issue at the top of the international diplomatic agenda.

Dr Sundar Thava, of Freedom for Torture, Amnesty International the Fabian Network and an NHS doctor, told the audience about his 10 years experience as an officer in the army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In contrast to John Lloyd, he was pleased with the outcome of the parliamentary voted although he had not been impressed by the quality of the debate. He believed that we shouldn't intervene and that question was a moral one. The US held hegemony over the UN but we can't sweep China and Russia aside. We should look at the concept of national interest as it applies to the US, Russia and Syria.

The US was seeking to spread neo-liberalism internationally and doesn't need us in terms of our armed forces as such - they can go it alone. Thava thought our non-participation would not affect the 'special; relationship'. He didn't agree with gassing but felt that Obama had been silly in making its use a 'red line; and been trapped into the position of having to be seen to react.

He wanted to see evidence that bombing would send a message to other dictators - he could see none. There was no such thing as bombardment as a 'surgical tool' and it was insincere to suggest that bombardment could be effective without the use of ground troops.

Military intervention would risk escalating the situation.

In the subsequent discussion different views were expressed but I got the impression, despite no show of hands, that there were more people supporting Bartoletti and Thava than Lloyd.

I was not chosen by Chair Tulip Siddiq to ask a question but would have wanted to discuss the wider issue of the UK's international role and whether we should cease the 'punching above our weight' approach that has become our role. Hugh Gaitskell's condemnation of the Suez adventure, Harold Wilson's steadfast refusal to send British troops to Vietnam, Robin Cook's attempt at an ethical foreign policy have to be set against Tony Blair's actions in Iraq.

Can you be an internationalist without being a military interventionist?

Syria Public Meeting tomorrow in Queen's Park

In view of the recent House of Commons vote and the developing situation regarding chemical weapons and military intervention, this Labour Party meeting should be of interest to readers of all political parties and none:

This public event will look to provide a 101 guide to the situation in Syria – how did the conflict evolve? what is happening on the ground? what should Britain’s response to the crisis be?

Any donations raised on the night will go to ‘Save the Children’s’ Syria response.


Chair –

Tulip Siddiq - Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. She is a Camden Councillor and the Cabinet Member for Culture and Communities.

Panel –

Cllr. James Denselow -Queen’s Park Councillor, Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre, has worked and lived extensively in the Middle East including in Syria.

John Lloyd – Contributing Editor, Financial Times

Dr Sundar Thava - Practising NHS medical doctor and medico-legal expert for the Charity: “Freedom from Torture”.

Ivana Bartoletti - London Labour candidate for the 2014 European elections, member of the exec of the Fabian Society and Deputy Director of the Fabian Women’s Network

Venue –
St. Anne’s Brondesbury 125 Salusbury Road NW6 6RG

Bennett on Syria: Focus on humanitarian aid, ban London Arms Fair and Scrap Trident

Transcript adaptation of speech

Syria: Greens amongst hundreds protesting against military strike

I joined many Greens and anti-war protesters on the Syria march this afternoon and it was great to see so many young people and families present. We were  united in wanting to reinforce the message to the Coalition government to keep out of the conflict but also in calling on President Obama not to attack Syria.

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett spoke for many when she called on the government to focus on humanitarian aid, call off the up-coming London Arm's Fair and abolish Trident.

I would add that given the widespread lack of confidence in politicans word on these issues that it is imperative that the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry be published as soon as possible.

Lucas calls for redoubling of Syrian aid efforts following Commons vote

Following Thursday’s parliamentary vote against military intervention in Syria, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion is calling for a redoubling of humanitarian support to the region.

Caroline Lucas said:

“Whatever the political significance of (Thursday’s) vote, it’s vital that the focus urgently shifts now to humanitarian support for the victims of the conflict.

“There are millions of people who have lost their homes, or are in urgent need of medical care.
“We are hearing from development agencies, including Oxfam, that the situation facing refugees, in Syria and the wider region, is appalling. More than eight million people are now in desperate need of supplies.

“As a matter of urgency we should be increasing aid to Syria’s neighbours to help them support the families forced to seek refuge.

 “A huge amount of political energy has been focused on getting ready for a military strike.  If even just a fraction of those resources could be directed towards this humanitarian crisis, we could do much to reduce further suffering and loss of life."

Lucas also called for the perpetrators of chemical weapons attacks to be referred to the International Criminal Court.

“Crimes against humanity and international law have been committed.  Once there is evidence of responsibility for these appalling attacks, those responsible must be dealt with by the International Criminal Court.”

Syria demonstration to go ahead on Saturday

Statement by Stop the War:

The Stop the War Coalition welcomes the defeat of David Cameron’s plan to attack Syria in parliament last night. We didn’t stop the war in Iraq, but we did create a mass anti war opinion in Britain. 

That tide of anti war opinion has made itself felt in the past few days. MPs have in their majority refused to back a fourth intervention by western powers since 2001. They have for once reflected the majority public opinion in this country.

We now have to reject all attempts at intervention in Syria and to develop a foreign policy which is based on equality and justice, and the rights of national sovereignty.

The Tory led government will try to recoup the situation. We will demonstrate on Saturday against this intervention, whether by the US alone or with Britain involved. It is the aim of the anti-war movement to ensure that the US is forced to abandon the attack on Syria now that the country with which it is supposed to enjoy a ‘special relationship’ has carried a parliamentary vote against war.

Brent politicians' positions on Syria debate

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Teather joined Labour colleagues Barry Gardiner and Glenda Jackson in voting against the government motion on Syria last night. Barry Gardiner made an effective intervention when Nick Clegg was summing up, asking if the US mounted an attack over the weekend whether the UK would offer 'indirect' support (the use of UK bases for example). Clegg failed to answer fully and his avoidance was followed up by other MPs, contributing to doubts over the Coalition's position.

Gardiner had strongly supported Tony Blair's Iraq war.

Following the Government defeat and David Cameron's declaration that there would be no direct UK intervention the issue of whether there will be indirect support remains unanswered. The Labour Party meanwhile hasn't clarified whether their position is still that set out in its motion, support for intervention if conditions are met, or whether it is now opposed to any military intervention.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari made here position clear this morning in a Tweet:

Horrified and outraged by scenes in Syria. Fail to understand anyone who categorically rules out military intervention to help these people.

At 6pm yesterday  Sarah Teather posted a full statement on her position:

Everyone will agree that the use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent and unjustifiable act. The horrifying pictures that emerged after last week's attack were devastating to see and all will want action to prevent this from reoccurring.

However, I do not believe that the case for military action to prevent further attacks has been made successfully, either practically or ethically.

I am not opposed to military action in all situations. I do accept that military intervention is sometimes necessary, for example as part of an international peacekeeping mission, as an urgent response to prevent an immediate imminent humanitarian disaster such as genocide, or as an act of self-defence. When used in such circumstances, military action must be a last resort, have some reasonable chance of success and be proportionate to its context. I am not convinced that the proposed action in this situation meets those objectives.

First, it falls into none of the categories described above (peacekeeping, prevention of genocide, self-defence). Instead it seeks to punish a country for an action it has already taken. We have repeatedly heard politicians speak of a 'slapped wrist' or of making clear that Assad's actions 'must be seen to have consequences'. I am troubled that military action on this basis - which would inevitably involve further loss of life - may not have an adequate moral or legal foundation to justify it.

Politicians in the UK have subsequently shifted their rhetoric to argue that it is intended to be a deterrent rather than a punishment. But it is not clear how it would succeed in acting as a deterrent and yet meet the test for proportionality. Certainly it seems to have limited chance of success in meeting an objective of preventing further use of chemical weapons. Strikes against chemical weapon stores would be incredibly dangerous and would risk civilian casualties. An alternative course of strikes against minor targets would do little to dissuade Assad and instead could result in him escalating the already bloody civil war that is raging in Syria. We simply cannot know what Assad's response to any attack would be.

Stronger military action would also not accomplish the stated aim. Weakening Assad's military capabilities would tip the balance in favour of regime change - something the Government has steered clear from. The situation in Syria is extremely complicated and is not simply a case of Assad's regime versus the Syrian people. The Syrian opposition is not a homogenous group, but is rather a mix of factions and sub-groups where in many cases the shared value is opposition to Assad. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the sudden toppling of Assad will end the civil war. Instead it is much more likely to result in the conflict spreading beyond the borders of Syria, further destabilising the region. I therefore do not believe that any military action will achieve the asserted aim of preventing further chemical attacks.

There is no easy answer to the current situation in Syria but I fear that military action can only make matters worse. And if we do intervene and the situation continues to escalate, what then? It would be almost unavoidable for the UK not to be drawn into further and more intensive military action.

In our understandable desire to do something in the face of such appalling atrocities we are in danger of arriving at a contradictory position: attempting to uphold international law by flouting international law ourselves and attempting to make a statement about our disapproval of violence by perpetrating further violence.

Some people have argued were we not to take military action, we would be washing our hands of the situation and doing nothing. However, the choice between military action and doing nothing is a false one. It is not clear to me that the only way to uphold international law is via military force. Certainly any military force would clearly need to be a last resort, having exhausted all other options.

Any solution to the current crisis in Syria needs to be political rather than military if long-term peace is to be found. That is why the UK must increase its attempts to work with international partners and provide full support for the Geneva II process in order to secure global cooperation in finding a peaceful resolution. There must also be full provision in place to provide international humanitarian support and aid for the nearly 2 million refugees that have left Syria - half of whom are children - who are fleeing into neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, and given the current circumstances, I do not support military intervention in Syria. I also feel that, while I welcome the work done by Nick Clegg in ensuring that the Government does not rush into military action, tonight's motion paves the way for a future commitment. As such, I shall this evening be voting against the motion

Lucas amendment on Syria says case for military action not established

Ahead of tomorrow's parliamentary debate on Syria, Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion, has tabled the following amendment to the Government's motion:

"[That this House] deplores the chemical weapons attacks and appalling loss of life in Syria; notes that the reports of weapons inspectors in Syria are yet to be published, and that there is no UN authorisation for military action; regrets that the Attorney General's advice on the legality of military action has not been made available to honorable members; calls for refugees from the Syrian conflict to be fully assisted and supported; and believes that the case for military action against Syria has not been established.

Caroline Lucas
Paul Flynn
Jeremy Corbyn
Elfyn Llwyd
Jonathan Edwards
Hywel Williams"

Whitehall blocked by Syria anti-war protesters - make it massive on Saturday

The crowd in Whitehall

Among the speakers were Jenny Jones Green Am and Diane Abbot MP

A group of Green Party members at the protest

At the gate of Downing Street

Protesters eventually blocked Whitehall

Britain France and the US are poised to attack Syria. Even ex-generals are warning that such an attack can have incalculable consequences. It risks terrible casualties, will intensify the desperate civil war and threatens to draw other regional powers in to the conflict.

As Stop the War's statement on Syria points out 'It seems that the Western governments have already made up their minds about this attack before it has even been reported on by UN weapons inspectors.' This underlines the fact that the intervention, far from being humanitarian, is part of a wider project of regime change.

While our politicians appear to have learnt nothing from the disasters of Afghanistan, Iraq most people in Britain oppose any attack. Only 9% support British troops getting involved and only 25% back missile strike.
 
Protests are taking place across the country today and tomorrow - please check here for details and phone us if you want to organise something in your area.

Make Saturday massive

Saturday's national demonstration is crucial. We need to be a real expression of mass public opinion. Please do everything possible to attend and promote as widely as you can.

The demonstration is now assembling at Temple Tube at midday on Saturday and marching via parliament and Downing Street to Trafalgar Square for a rally. Transport has already been organised from various towns and cities, please contact the office for more information.

Demonstrate - No attack on Syria, this Saturday 31 August. 12 midday,  Temple tube, Victoria Embankment.

Lucas: Syria action likely to provoke regime and escalate the conflict

COMMENTING on the announcement that Parliament is being recalled to discuss possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria, Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, said:

“I’m pleased that Parliament has been recalled, and have long argued that MPs should be guaranteed a free (un-whipped) vote before any involvement in conflict.

“However, I have deep concerns about resorting to military action. While completely deploring the actions of Assad and his regime, and believing that all those responsible for war crimes should be referred to the International Criminal Court, it is by no means clear that military action will reduce suffering in the region.

“Our guiding principle now must be to do all we can to protect lives. When considering military intervention, we need to look at the balance of risks. Currently, there is no evidence that the most likely scenario – a symbolic missile strike on a key regime target – would have a deterrent effect on the Assad regime.  To the contrary, it seems at least as likely that it could act as a provocation to the regime, and lead to an escalation of the conflict, and greater harm to civilians.

“We need to learn from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the UK supports or participates in military action, particularly before a full report from the UN weapons inspectors, our chances of working towards a diplomatic resolution would be seriously undermined.

“Given that Russia looks likely to block agreement at the Security Council, the legality of a military response is also in question.

“The UK should now redouble efforts to address the refugee crisis, particularly in Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Lebanon, and support all humanitarian efforts to reduce suffering.”