Syria’s Blood Lines

The result of last Thursday’s shotgun Parliamentary debate has been largely heralded has a failure for British politics or a tragedy for Britain’s role in the world. I beg to differ. The parliamentary debate was rushed and ill timed but it also helped to pull back some of red-carpeted pretensions that were the relics of empire. The government should have waited until the reports of the UN weapon inspectors. Parliament and by extension, the British public is right to be war-weary, especially since the Iraq war and its consequences are still only a decade old. Britain is not the world’s moral arbiter but it does have a moral responsibility to intervene in a humanitarian crisis such as in Syria, only when it has clear objectives for intervention. Finally, the parliamentary debate neither diminished Britain’s role in the world or it’s standing in the faux special relationship with the US. Rather, it has shown democracy at its finest despite the painful, desperate and uncomfortable political consequences.

David Cameron’s poor strategic decision to rush back parliament on Thursday brought back Blair-like memories of the Iraq war. The Prime Minister would do well to learn from Lord Hurd’s advice in The Search for Peace: “Do not proclaim in public what you hope to accomplish until you are confident that you can carry it through. Be prepared to say no, to stay out until you have that confidence and share it with all main actors.” Understandably, the situation in Syria appears dire but it appears unwise to make a decision before convincing, if not conclusive evidence that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attacks. Evidence should precede decision, not otherwise. Importantly, the willing tripartite: the UK, the US and France must let the UN weapon instructors to do their work. This would provide a moral justification for any intervention.

Interfering in another country’s affairs should not be taken except in the most exceptional circumstances. The Syrian crisis is an exceptional humanitarian catastrophe but military intervention should be a last resort. Additionally, the goals of any military intervention in Syria should have clear objectives. The lack of clarity in previous interventions in Iraq and more recently in Libya has resulted in negative consequences. For instance, Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaeda in Libya is thought to be responsible for the killing of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens and three others. Reminiscent of Libya, there are claims that al-Qaeda affiliate groups have infiltrated the Free Syrian army. For many of these groups like Jabat al-Nusra, welcoming the coalition of the willing is a marriage of convenience with the devil. There remains deep mistrust and hatred but they are prepared to dine with the devil using a long fork.

Sadly, most of the post parliamentary debate commentary was focused on Britain’s role in the world and its relationship with the US, less so the plight of the Syrian people. The debate has neither diminished Britain’s role in the world nor irreparably damaged our much-treasured but equally derided special relationship with the US. Instead, we have reminded our special friends about the essence of democratic politics and the need for proper checks and balances. Britain should not always play Robin to America’s caped crusader. Cameron’s ill-timed but right decision to have a parliamentary debate about intervention has led president Obama to take the issue to the US congress despite previous intent to intervene if the “red line of chemical weapons” was crossed. Similarly, François Hollande is now thought to be considering a similar move with the French National Assembly. As arduous and time consuming as the legislative process can be, it ensures greater degree of clarity for those committed to intervention. Without clear political objectives, any military action in Syria would be futile.

Any action must be proportionate, legal, and aimed at reducing humanitarian suffering. There must be compelling evidence that the Assad regime is responsible or culpable for the chemical attacks on the Syrian people. Consequently, the UN weapon inspectors must be allowed to do their work or at least, the US must submit its proof that chemical attacks were carried out by the Assad regime. Domestic and international support is necessary for the legitimacy of intervention. We must not ignore the lessons of Iraq.