The argument for intervening in Syria is strong – but not strong enough

I will be voting against airstrikes. David Cameron’s case doesn’t add up to the comprehensive strategy that we need to end war in Syria and defeat Isis

 

The civil war in Syria is complex and devastating. The home of some of the world’s greatest ancient civilisations has been reduced to rubble, and among the ashes lie the corpses of more than 250,000 Syrian people. The biggest butcher in Syria has been Bashar al-Assad, though the Syrian government is just one of many actors bringing death and destruction to innocent Syrians. Against this backdrop it is not hard to understand why so many Syrians have been prepared to risk their lives to cross the Mediterranean sea for sanctuary in Europe, though it is impossible to imagine what they have been through.

Events in Paris have underlined the threat that Isis poses to our own safety and security at home. In the past six months, our security and intelligence services have prevented seven attacks on British soil, according to David Cameron. Meanwhile, the head of MI5 and the chair of the joint intelligence committee have confirmed that the UK is in the top tier of targets for their terrorist activity. Isis combatants, foreign and domestic, plan to attack us regardless of whether we extend airstrikes into Syria. The deadly and fanatical nature of this death cult requires a multi-faceted response to wipe out its military capability and erode its base of support.

With this in mind, I have maintained an open mind. I have listened very carefully to the case that the prime minister has made for military action, I have listened to colleagues in parliament, sought independent advice and expertise, and considered the 50 or so representations made by people from Ilford North, my constituency. The question for me is whether extending airstrikes into Syria is both in our national interest and in the interest of innocent civilians in Syria.
We need a comprehensive strategy to bring about an end to the Syrian civil war and defeat Isis. For me, this must include:

• A successful diplomatic effort to secure a stable and orderly transition from a President Assad-led Syrian government to a national government that includes the religious, ethnic and political diversity of the Syrian population. Russian influence here will be critical.

• A coordinated humanitarian response to the devastation and displacement affecting the Syrian people.

• A major programme of reconstruction to help the Syrians rebuild their country.

• A military response to defeat Isis, with ground forces drawn from the region (not the US or UK) with the international community providing relevant support – including from the air.

The prime minister’s statement this week went a long way to addressing these issues, though some significant concerns remain about the strategy to defeat Isis. Airstrikes alone will not work. The prime minister accepts that ground troops will be needed to defeat Isis and suggested that the Kurds and Free Syrian Army could provide ground troops. I do not believe that the Kurdish forces or the Free Syrian Army have the capability to provide the ground offensive against Isis that we need. Without a diplomatic initiative to build a larger coalition of regional ground troops, I fear we will be inevitably drawn into a quagmire. These concerns have been echoed by Julian Lewis MP, the Conservative chair of the defence select committee, among others.

I am pleased that the prime minister’s statement made reference to the humanitarian effort and emphasised the need for investment in reconstruction – these were major failings in the UK’s approach in Iraq and Libya. Nonetheless, I do not think the case for urgent and immediate UK military involvement in airstrikes, ahead of the conclusion of the diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the Syrian civil war, has been made.

On this basis, it is very likely that I will vote against military action in a Commons vote.

I wish I had the self-assurance and certainty to tell you that this is unquestionably the right decision. The reality is far more complex and no one can be certain. There are some compelling arguments in favour of airstrikes. I respect colleagues who have reached a different conclusion and do not question their integrity or sincerity.

This should be above party politics. I am deeply saddened to report that a number of Labour colleagues are experiencing tactics that can only be described as bullying and intimidating: hostile resolutions, abusive messages and threats of deselection. This is no way to conduct debate on such an important issue – or indeed any issue. I feel very lucky to be part of our Labour family in Ilford North, where we conduct our debates in an inclusive and supportive manner. Every message I have received from local members have been in that spirit, and I am grateful. I believe we need a free vote on military action and have relayed this view to the whips and party leadership.

In the coming days I will keep listening, maintain an open mind and act in accordance with my conscience.

 

 

THE GUARDIAN