The
following is the text of a letter which Philip Grant sent jointly to
the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 27 August, and which
is produced here as a “guest blog” so that other readers can
express their own views, if they wish to do so. As Parliament has
been recalled to discuss Syria, Philip also copied it to Barry
Gardiner MP, with the message: ‘I
hope that, on this issue, you will not repeat the error of
judgement you made in 2003 in supporting British military action in
Iraq.’
Dear
Mr Cameron and Mr Hague,
Why
Britain should not take military action over Syria
I
am writing to ask you to reconsider the action which several recent
public statements and media reports
suggest that
you are about to commit this country to taking. Like you, I am
appalled by the apparent use of chemical weapons in Syria,
particularly against civilians, but the use by Britain and/or its
allies of military action in this conflict will not solve Syria’s
problems, and is more likely to make matters in the Middle East worse
rather than better.
The
current situation in Syria is, like all armed conflicts, terrible for
the people caught up in it, but it is a civil war, and does not
directly involve, or threaten, the United Kingdom. Like all such
conflicts, atrocities have occurred, and have probably been committed
by groups on both sides. Civil wars are awful events and take a long
time to heal, but they have to be resolved by the people of the
countries that they affect. England’s own eight year civil war in
the 1640’s was followed by more than ten years of discord and
dictatorship,
before the return of the monarchy and parliamentary government. The
Ottoman Empire did not get involved in our civil war, and there was
no reason why it should – it was a long distance away, and our
conflict had nothing to do with a country in the eastern
Mediterranean. Although there are much better communications in the
21st
century than in the 17th,
the principle is still the same.
Have
our involvement in the Iraq war from 2003, in Afghanistan since 2001
and more recently in the Libyan civil conflict, meant that those
countries now enjoy peace, stability and democracy? The honest answer
is “No”. Not only that, our own and the US’s military
involvement in those countries has seen the deaths of thousands of
innocent civilians, some as a direct result of high-tech weapons
being directed at the “wrong” targets, or even worse, because of
deliberate action by over-zealous service personnel. There is no way
that our military involvement in the Syrian conflict would not cause
more unnecessary deaths.
This
country was wrong, and in breach of international law, to attack Iraq
without the full approval of the United Nations in 2003. It would be
equally wrong to get involved, with allies but again without a clear
resolution approved by the UN Security Council, in any military
action against the Assad government or any other group in Syria. That
approval will not be forthcoming, because of the “checks and
balances” built into the UN system. Those “balances” are not a
bad thing, because one country engaging in military action against
another sovereign country which is not at war with it is something
which the international community rightly wishes to avoid, unless
there is absolutely no alternative.
I
am sure you feel that Britain has to do something, and I agree. It
should continue to speak out against any atrocities, and support all
efforts to get them properly investigated, so that whoever commits
them can be brought before a proper court in due course, either
within Syria or at the international court, to be tried for their
crimes. It should do everything it can to support humanitarian work
to help those affected by the conflict, both refugees in neighbouring
countries and, where possible, those displaced and suffering within
Syria. It should encourage all sides to cease fighting and try to
resolve their differences by discussion and agreement, for the sake
of their own fellow Syrians.
What
Britain should not
do is to use any of its weapons and armed forces, or to support or
encourage others to use theirs, to attack any targets within Syria.
If we were to go down that road, where would it stop? Assume that the
US navy (and our own?) were to fire several hundred cruise missiles
at so-called military targets in Syria. Damage would be done, people
would be killed, but would that make the various sides in the civil
war stop fighting? And if it did not, what action would “the
allies” take next? How many more people would die, and how long
would we continue to take such action, before this extra destruction
ended?
What damage would also be done to Britain’s relations with
other countries around the world, and what further instability and
conflict might such action trigger in the Middle East?
Please
listen to this common sense advice from an ordinary British citizen
and voter, and resist the temptation to take “the military option”.
