Like all MPs, I have been thinking about how to vote on the Government’s plan regarding the civil war in Syria. This plan is multifaceted, including political and diplomatic work to bring about a peaceful end to the fighting, detailed planning regarding post conflict reconstruction, a strategy for refugees, and the application of military force to drive Daesh/ISIL out of Syria as well as Iraq.
While all elements of this plan are substantial issues and require significant thought, the question of whether to send our armed forces into conflict is one of the most serious decisions that Members of Parliament have to make. I believe that each member will come to their own decision based on what they truly believe to be right. Those who support intervention are not warmongers, those who oppose are not pacifists, and they are stating honestly held opinions on a complex and multidimensional issue.
I have spoken to constituents, read every email and letter, listened to their concerns and tried to hear all of their viewpoints. Likewise I have discussed the issue with colleagues, read widely on the subject and listened closely to arguments. I have also been pleased by the clear plan of action from the Vienna peace talks, the ambition being to have a transitional government in place in 6 months and a new constitution and elections in 18 months.
Following this I have come to the conclusion that I will support the Government’s plans. Daesh represent a threat to our national security, as well as being a horrific and barbarous death cult. Their ideology must be combatted and defeated to ensure our national security and to deliver an end to the Syrian civil war, and the mass exodus of people, and begin the reconstruction of a war-torn country.
As the Prime Minister has explained Raqqa is the headquarters for this group and Syria is where they process and sell the oil that funds their atrocious activities – the terrorists do not respect a line on a map dividing Iraq and Syria, so our work against Daesh should also focus on both nations. We are able to bring additional capability to the conflict, with our Brimstone missiles being more accurate and better able to prevent civilian casualties than other nation’s ordinance.
There are a number of concerns that have been raised regarding this decision that I hope I can briefly address.
Firstly, and most importantly, it has been argued that acting could harm our national security. I believe that there is already a risk to our national security and that inaction would pose a greater risk than action in this case. The Daesh terrorists do not hate us because of what we do, but because of who we are.
Secondly concerns have been raised about the potential inclusion of ground forces as a part of this strategy. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment that British ground troops will not be deployed to Syria.
Thirdly I have been asked about the long term plan for Syria and whether air strikes will be enough to resolve the crisis in Syria. Air strikes are one necessary component of the plan, but alone they are not enough. This is why the Government has a plan to provide humanitarian support and to work politically and diplomatically with allies and regional partners to ensure post-conflict stabilisation. That is why the Government has already contributed over a billion pounds in support and has committed to at least another billion for post-conflict reconstruction.
Finally people have raised concerns regarding the legality of the intervention. The UN resolution says that Daesh “constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security”, it calls on UN member states to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed by Daesh and calls on member states to “eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria”.
While some may disagree with the decision I have made let me reassure you that this is not a decision I take lightly. Our allies – including France and the USA – have made clear that they want us to participate. There is a clear legal case and a practical, well defined plan both for the intervention and for the equally important post conflict reconstruction.
Finally there is the cost of inaction. If we do not act then we must live with the consequences of inaction; our allies will think us unreliable, the Syrian people will have to live under the yoke of Daesh and – most importantly – our national security will be threatened by a terrorist safe haven in Syria and Iraq.
I hope those on both sides of this difficult argument will treat people with a different view with respect. This is a question where this is no perfect solution, and no answer is 100% correct. However a decision has to be made and I have made it.
