Thursday, August 29, 2013
Government position on Syria is right way forward
Irrespective of how they reached it, the decision by the UK Government not to rush into a military confrontation with Syria is the right one. Like many others I am concerned with the legality of any action, especially after what happened over Iraq, but what is really important is that we understand the consequences of any action and have an exit strategy. It should not be our job to destabilise the country even further, no matter how unacceptable and barbaric the use of chemical weapons is.
The use of those chemicals is a war crime and needs to be punished, but a direct miliary intervention, of whatever nature creates the danger of punishing the wrong people both directly and indirectly over a period of time.
That is why I welcome Nick Clegg's letter to members yesterday in which he makes it clear that this is not Iraq. He says that any case for international action must be taken to the UN in an effort to achieve as great an international consensus as possible. He adds that we must wait until we hear from the weapons inspectors:
All sides agree, the murder of innocent men, women and children through the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and a crime against humanity. It is a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law.
It is important that we try to do everything we can to ensure international and cross party consensus.
That is why we have listened to EU countries and the Arab League, why we are taking this to the UN and why we are ensuring the House of Commons has the final say before any direct British involvement – one vote tomorrow, and another one if and when we are asked to participate directly.
As we consider action, I am clear, we must only consider measures which are legal, which are proportionate, which have as much international backing as possible and which are specific to stopping the use of chemical weapons. These are weapons which are indiscriminate in their killing and have been prohibited under international law for generations.
Any action must take the country with it. That means that we must have done all we can to find a peaceful solution first. We are clearly not at that point yet. That is why it is right that we do not rush into military action.
The use of those chemicals is a war crime and needs to be punished, but a direct miliary intervention, of whatever nature creates the danger of punishing the wrong people both directly and indirectly over a period of time.
That is why I welcome Nick Clegg's letter to members yesterday in which he makes it clear that this is not Iraq. He says that any case for international action must be taken to the UN in an effort to achieve as great an international consensus as possible. He adds that we must wait until we hear from the weapons inspectors:
All sides agree, the murder of innocent men, women and children through the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and a crime against humanity. It is a repugnant crime and a flagrant abuse of international law.
It is important that we try to do everything we can to ensure international and cross party consensus.
That is why we have listened to EU countries and the Arab League, why we are taking this to the UN and why we are ensuring the House of Commons has the final say before any direct British involvement – one vote tomorrow, and another one if and when we are asked to participate directly.
As we consider action, I am clear, we must only consider measures which are legal, which are proportionate, which have as much international backing as possible and which are specific to stopping the use of chemical weapons. These are weapons which are indiscriminate in their killing and have been prohibited under international law for generations.
Any action must take the country with it. That means that we must have done all we can to find a peaceful solution first. We are clearly not at that point yet. That is why it is right that we do not rush into military action.
