It would be hard not to comment on the fall out from the Syria vote in the House of Commons last night.
Let's start by saying the obvious: the aim has to be peace in Syria. And the recognition has to be that eventually this will be a political, and not a military process. Peace will, eventually, have to reign in that state. I am well aware it is not. I am well aware that their are atrocities going on - and not just the use of chemical weapons, abhorrent as that is. And the atrocities are, I am sure, on all sides. That is what happens in civil war. It disgusts us, and rightly so.
But this is a civil war: atrocities are particularly acute it seems in such conflicts. The ability of the human being to inflict pain on those closest to them is well known. And the question always has to be how can that process be mitigated and dialogue, reconciliation and healing begin?
I think the Commons recognised that last night. It realised that the case for escalating a civil conflict did not exist - especially when in the confused state of that war the evidence of blame for the latest atrocity is not absolutely clear.
That, I think, has enormous significance. The implication of rejecting the US demand for action, for example, is enormous: it may be safe to assume the 'special relationship is dead'. Politically it's as important to note that the neoconservative logic that has dominated that relationship for so many years may have died with it. No wonder Michael Gove was reported to be incandescent with rage.
But if that is the case then the UK's military spending - way out of proportion to our size - needs to be curtailed. There is no point spending a fortune on the machinery of war (for our defence needs are limited) when we are no longer willing to go to war whenever the Pentagon demands.
Trident is the very obvious focus for this consideration: parliament would not sanction supposedly limited war against Syria. Is there any chance at all it would ever, in that case, sanction the release of nuclear missiles? I think not. And the precedent for doing so on the basis of the Royal prerogative is, I think, now dead. Miliband's finest moment yesterday was in keeping a cool enough head to ask about that issue in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of the results of voting. This is a scheme now simply waiting to be scrapped.
And whilst we will still need armed forces their focus does, surely, have to change if we are not willing to go to war any more? Isn't it time for the UK to take a lead in peace-making? What then is the use of two new aircraft carriers? As helicopter ships they may have a role for delivering aid and peacekeeping troops, but why are we equipping them for fighter planes intended to launch missile attacks when it is fairly clear that parliament is increasingly reluctant in the light of evidence and experience (not just Iraq, but Libya too) to engage again and again in conflict which does not appear to deliver anything like the intended consequences and can clearly cause harm?
More fundamentally, a re-appraisal of just what the UK is might be in progress. A country that is not even sure it is a country any more - and the Scottish independence vote gives good reason for doubt on that issue as I do not see a 'No' vote as anything like a foregone conclusion - has a real problem in projecting itself as an international force. I'm not convinced we are. Our economy has changed. Our economic legacy is tainted by being a major contributor to the global financial crash in 2008. Our self perception has changed. Our standing as a major nation based on the legacy of the Second World War is now history.
Now this could be seen as a blow to the UK - but only, if truth be told, for a tiny minority in the Westminster bubble. Beyond that no-one really thinks we're now a major power. But the dividends of becoming a peace-monger (albeit, I stress, an active one, with the forces needed to undertake that role) are enormous. Cancelling Trident alone releases valuable resources that will reduce the demand for austerity. Changing military procurement across a wide range of issues would have much the same effect. A defence force costs less to run than on offence force: peacekeeping, whilst obviously costly, is much cheaper than maintaining forces for aggression.
The reality is that there are wounds at home that need healing as well as wounds internationally. Last night's vote on Syria was, I think, pivotal in the history of UK foreign relations. Staggeringly a Prime Minister failed to get his way on going to war - not least from his own party. The history of the Blair years has come home to roost: aggression first and questions later is no longer acceptable. That's why we need to now question why we might be aggressive at all in future.
The UK has an enormous role to play in foreign policy, but not, I might suggest, the one it has played to date. And it will be all the better for it, because some of the bravado of the super-power has sustained a political elite willing to ignore the needs of people in this country. That bravado will disappear if the bubble of UK supremacy is burst. A more humble UK may well be a better UK and Im for one, would welcome that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Personally I welcome the vote. A shift in our view of our role in the world is long overdue. A more humble UK indeed is where we need to head. In my Bible, Jesus said it was the peacemakers (not peacekeepers) who are blessed. Peace making in my view takes out of the equation the need to consider our national vested interest, and the sooner that happens in our dealings in foreign affairs, the safer and more peaceful the world will become.
Agreed
The fact that a number of Tory backbenchers were willing to challenge Cameron’s pathetic attempt at Blair-like dodgy statesmanship is the first bit of ‘light’ I’ve seen come out of the political world for some time -and it raised my spirits a jot or two! This is to be welcomed! Ministers sounded pathetic and illiterate in showing support for attacks which were causing gold prices to rise (someone always coins it when death and destruction are on the cards).
As you say, Richard, we don’t yet know who was responsible for this and were treated to the undignified scene of Ministers both expressing certainty and yet maintaining that it was a ‘judgment’ issue!!
Let’s hope this the first sign of metal fatigue in the iron wall of the neo-cons! The middle east is mired in intractable conflicts that were held together by dictatorships supported by the West-hardly a case for more Geopolitical projects
Agreed Simon, some light in the general gloom of contemporary UK politics. As a trade union member, public sector worker and betrayed LibDem voter who feels constantly under attack from this government, it’s nice to see them suffer a genuine defeat.
Well done all those MP’s who don’t think UK foreign policy should always be about being the 51st state. And Richard makes an excellent point about this proving the need for a reassesment of our defence policies.
I really hope this marks, if not the end, then a significant decline in the special relationship, which has always been one of the most depressing aspects of British government for a long time. The British empire’s gone, time to stop hankering after it by tagging along on the Americans’ coat tails.
Indeed – I was lured into voting Lib-Dem last time after years of gut wrenching disgust with Labour- I was deceived of course – now i have no-one to vote for, which is a state of affairs with some clarity at least!
Whether this Syria vote is the first chink remains to be see.
While you can write a lot about this, I feel the truth is more depressing: that the public mood has realised that the middle east is simply too complex to get involved in. There are not good sides and bad sides. There are complex tribal loyalties which we do not understand.
Assad may have used Sarin but the rebels have also been found with a stash of chemical weapons on the Turkish border. Assad, like Gaddafi and Hussein, may be a nasty piece of work, but at least he has (to date) stopped the country descending into the sort of chaos that engulfed Algeria for decades.
When a country like Egypt gets democracy it votes for a repressive regime and the army has to step in to defend secular values. Without the rule of law and universal education, democracy doesn’t work.
But let’s be clear: this was a victory for narrow self-interest. It was the right decision but it was not made to assist any peace process, it was made simply because there is no benefit for the UK in getting involved.
And one other point: for decades the left has argued that all of the problems in the middle-east are due to Israel, and that if the Israel problem could be solved everything would be rosy. I think it is now evident that this has been a total misunderstanding or the reality.
I think that a great deal of that is over-simplification
Including the last para
ESPECIALLY the last para, given that Israel is pushing forward with its programme of Batustanization of the West Bank, having in the process, demolished more than 25,000 Palestinian homes – some of them FIVE times, when the hapless indigenous Palestinians “dared” to rebuild them.
A look at – the admittedly partisan – site of https://www.facebook.com/#!/IAcknowledgeApartheidExists?hc_location=stream
will offer assertions that are shocking, and, if substantiated, that constitute more than adeqaute reason for Arab hostility.
The only real solution to Israel/Palestine is Barghouti’s “secular One State” solution. That, or a Two State solution in which the settlers who have settled on Arab land become Palestininan citizens in a Palestinian State.
On balance, I think they’d prefer the One State solution.
I think there is much truth in what Roger is saying-it can hardly be called an over simplification as he is pointing out the network of intractable issues that underlie this. This history of the are shows up a history of manipulation,double bluffs and ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ foreign policy.
Roger
up to a point Lord Copper.Ha ha. It was also because we have the utmost reason to fear intelligence coming out of the Middle East. 2 of our ‘allies’, Israel & Saudi Arabia, have their own reasons for urging a war on Syria which are not only utterly contrary to our national interests but probably contrary to the interests of the Syrian people.
It seems, to me, from what I’ve heard on the Radio (no first hand knowledge, I’ll be frank) that the Syrian civil war is descending into a stalemate which is almost certainly the best solution all ways round. There are various ‘forces’ that can’t tolerate this & want the ‘Syrian opposition’ (an entirely disparate group, some of whom may genuinely be ‘freedom fighters’, some Sunni activists, some linked to Al Quaeda) to score a resounding win.
Regrettably, both Israel & Saudi Arabia want this outcome.
Israel because the Syrian Govt has now become closely (inextricably?) linked to their most hated enemy, the only one they fear, Hezbullah & Saudi Arabia because this is part of their eternal, evil, power-game with Iran.
Iran is Shia & isn’t part of the Arab world. Its also a democracy (of sorts) & an ancient centre of civilisation. Saudi Arabia is a pig-sty with motorways. They hate each other like rat poison.
Please ignore previous post !
Roger
you might also wonder why the Saudis are channelling their massive resources of gelt into both
1) propping up an undemocratic, totally corrupt, secular dictatorship against a groundswell of fundamentalist Muslim revolt in Egypt &
2) building up a groundswell of fundamentalist moslem revolt against an undemocratic, totally corrupt, secular dictatorship in Syria.
A) 1 is Sunni, 2 is Shia
– See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/08/30/on-the-fall-out-from-the-syria-vote-its-time-for-peacemaking/comment-page-1/?replytocom=661896#respond
I was pleased to see ‘sensible Tories’ being sensible. David Davis questioned, in barely disguised terms, his distrust of the US/UK security assurances that Assad was 100% responsible for the Sarin attack. As he said, the explanations do not make much sense for Assad.
However, he didn’t mention the dispute over the gas pipelines which seem to be behind the Quatari/Saudi backing for the rebel forces.. nor did he mention the constant naming of Syria as part of Bush’s Axis of Evil. It may be significant that a few weeks ago, Assad signed the agreement for an Iran-Iraq-Syria-Mediteranean ‘Shia’ gas pipeline, having rejected the Arab oil states ‘Sunni’ gas pipeline in 2011, when the troubles started. Obviously, the two pipelines would be in competition for the European energy market .. and regime change in Syria would be of tremendous economic advantage for the West’s allies, Saudi Arabia and Quatar.
I don’t know what has happened to oil prices today but yesterday the market seemed very calm .. in anticipation of a US strike? Furthermore, it seems that the rebel forces are naturally geering up to utilise any offensive orchestrated from the US.
So the oil states/rebel forces had very obvious reasons to set off a Sarin attack when the UN officials were so conveniently on hand… a ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment.
But regardless of all this, how can bombing more Syrians, in response to a gas attack, conceivably be effective or justified? In any event, neither side has shown much concern for killing their own. That’s the nature of civil war.. its horrific.
Oil prices fell. They had risen in anticipation of a military strike.
With respect I have to disagree Richard. I feel that the gassing of ‘civilians’ ( many of them clearly women & children) by the Syrian State was clearly in serious breach of international humanitarian laws. I feel Malcolm Rifkind’s brilliant speech in parliament captured the important points where he spoke of the grave dangers of doing damage to the UN’s reputation ( by allowing another line to be crossed by Assad with more UN inactivity possible following the already 1000,000 war deaths). Moreover he reminded us of the decline of the League of Nations once the Facist states of Germany & Italy had blocked so much of their peace keeping attempts. Further Of course we have the worry of ‘appeasement’ and Assad gassing civilans again.
I could not and will not share the delight of some people on the left seeing this in Anti-American, anti-Military or party political terms; death by chemical gasses is internationally outlawed and I feel deeply for our fellow Syrian victims of such grotesque Syrian government actions. In the end inactivity cannot be the correct moral reponse.
I have to disagree on Malcolm Rifkind
I saw a partisan neoconservative at work
I condemn what is happening in Syria
I am sure we must not make it worse
The first rule is always do no harm
Richard
The irony seems to be lost on you that on Tuesday you were quoting “If you tolerate thia your children will be next” in relation to your right to free speech and by Friday your are completely anti involvement in a civil war overseas.
Don’t you feel ashamed that you are willing to make comparisons between a call to arms by the Left to get involved in the Spanish Civil and you and other lobbyists being persecuted while gloating about the Left chossing politics ahead of intervening in a civil war where a state is gassing civilians.
I am sure I am not alone in finding that crass in the extreme.
No I’m not ion the slightest bit embarrassed
I have not for a minute said we ignore what is happening in Syria: far from it
I have asked for us to take action that does least harm. I am quite sure that bombing will cause more harm. There is ample evidence of it.
There is another dimension to this. The song in question referred to an appeal from the Spanish for intervention. I have heard no such call from Syria
We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do it. That is your logic, Leslie.
Nothing I’ve read so far proves to me that inaction will have worse consequences than action. The contrary may even be true.
We all know that the events in Syria are horrific. We’re all distressed by them. If we choose not to act it is not just out of self-interest but out of the equally moral AND pragmatic desire to not make matters worse.
Just because the campaign is morally justified doesn’t mean that the bombs will fall any more accurately.
Your moral stance is unquestionably well intentioned but the way you reason from that to a call for action leaves much to be desired.
terrible as it is, your analysis is spot on.
Richard, I entirely agree with your comments on this. If we were going to intervene in this civil war which has already claimed 100,000 lives why did the West leave it until now to make the case for military intervention. Why does the intervention have to be military? A political solution has to be negotiated and the UN needs to assume the lead role in this. In the meantime we should be providing humanitarian aid, medicines and financial aid to the neighbouring countries where the Syrian refugees are now located.
We bombed Libya to remove a brutal dictator and now, according to an economist from the World Bank, that country is a failed state. The end game of the West seems to be to destabilise these countries as an excuse to maintain a military presence and to advance the interests of the multinational corporations. We invaded Iraq and people are still dying as a result of sectarian violence, and frankly we have a major responsibility for what has happened there.
Let us take this opportunity to reassess our role in the world and find a way to escape from the stranglehold of the military/industrial complex.
Five U.S. Navy destroyers – the USS Gravely, USS Mahan, USS Barry, the USS Stout and USS Ramage – are in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. And the USS San Antonio, an amphibious assault ship has now joined them.
CVN-68 USS Nimitz and its battle group has arrived also.
Kerry, looking like a waxworks figure doing a voice-over for a Hollywood apocalyptic film gave the impression that some token event would have to take place.
I have to admit to having been profoundly unimpressed by Kerry
It’s not surprising he did not win a presidency
Agreed on his performance (the three previous female Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton, Condleeza Rice and Madeleine Albright – ALL outperform him.
Alas, however, I suspect he “lost” the Presidency in 2004 because the Republicans had the electronic voting in Ohio stitched up – computers lodged in the basement of a Bank owned by a man who had vowed to deliver Bush the Presidency.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2421715
and
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110804_stolen_election.shtml
Maybe the crooks knew something? Except that it was a choice between the prok barrel (Bush) and cold porridge (Kerry).