Rob Wallis examines the current situation in Syria and the possibility of British and UN intervention.
We’re no strangers at By Jove! to taking on grand and pressing social issues in a well-intentioned and hopefully not too ham-fisted way. In recent weeks, we’ve explored such topical conundrums as militant atheism (offensive or honest?) and the portraying women in contemporary fiction (all it takes is a smidge of empathy). Given the events that have been taking place in the news over the past few weeks, I’ve chosen to make this post about something more concrete and arguably more contentious: whether or not Britain should get involved in Syria. It’s a complex red button subject and, despite lacking any credentials to write about it besides a university education, access to the Internet, and a forum, I will try to do it what justice I can in the space of a blog post. So, with the theme from ‘The Newsroom’ pumping in my ears, let’s begin.
A full timeline of events can be found here on the Telegraph website. In short: on August 28th, Barack Obama announced that the Assad regime in Syria had made use of chemical weapons against its own civilians the night before. The Syrian rebels addressed an open address to British MPs requesting assistance, but, though David Cameron more or less immediately announced his intention that Britain should get involved, it was decided that Britain would wait for confirmation from UN weapon inspectors before getting involved. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, dispatched a team while the speaker of the Syrian Parliament implored the Western coalition to “communicate through civilized dialogue rather than a monologue of blood and fire”.
As it stands, a British Joint Committee Intelligent Assessment has ruled that “a chemical weapons attack did occur in Damascus last week; that it is highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible; that there is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability; and that no opposition group has the capability to conduct a chemical weapons attack on this scale” and that furthermore, “The Government’s position on the legality of any action makes clear that if action in the UN security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, to take exceptional measures including targeted military intervention in order to alleviate the overwhelming humanitarian suffering in Syria.” Today, though, William Hague, British foreign secretary, played down the imminence of British involvement, laying the burden of any military action on the shoulders of the United Nation as a whole.
For all the posturing on both sides – British and Syrian – and within the British political system itself, it still remains unclear as to whether immediate involvement is in the interests of both the British and the Syrian people. For instance, as Jack Straw has commented in the House of Commons, there was an “egregious failure” of intelligence that led to Britain’s participation in the Iraq war (though another MP argued it was a political failing as opposed to a military one). The general point, however, is valid: how can the British government justify participation in another conflict in the Middle East when it’s most recent one was premised on the presence of non-existent WMDs?
Furthermore, though the British Joint Committee may have determined the rebels could not have committed the atrocity, exactly how this conclusion was drawn remains unclear. The Free Syrian Army has previously claimed that it has chemical weapons capability with stores of mustard gas and nerve agents. While Assad is undoubtedly a ruthless dictator who has, in his twelve years in office, committed a myriad of human rights violations, it is nevertheless possible that Syrian rebel forces may have committed the attack in order to force Britain and America to intervene in the ongoing civil war. Syrian foreign minister Faisal al-Maqdad has claimed, of course, that rebels are indeed responsible, and, awaiting the return of UN weapons inspectors, there is no physical proof that this is not the case. The Labor party seems fit to oppose any suggestion of unilateral action in the British Commons, refusing to “give the PM a blank check”.
Then again, political interests may have prevented intervention in Syria before now: Marie Harf, spokesperson for the US State Department, has spoken of Russia’s “continued intransigence at the United Nations”. Also, an intervention need not involve a full-on invasion or even the commitment of ground troops: Britain has already committed a number of Hydra fighter craft to the conflict and precedent for an extended bombing campaign has already been set with NATO airstrikes in Kosovo back in 1999. Callous as this may sound, the 500 civilian lives that action cost are slight when compared to the 10,000 Kosovo Albanians killed or missing, or, indeed, the 100,000 civilians who have already been killed in Syria over the course of the last two years.
Though such an approach would likely be less contentious due the relatively low risk to British armed forces, it may well prove ineffective in destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons that may exist – which would have to be the primary motivation – and still necessitate further commitment down the line. Ed Miliband, Labor leader, has claimed his party would support British involvement so long as it had “clear and achievable goals”. That being said, there is certainly far greater urgency for intervention here than either in Iraq and Afghanistan in that, regardless of which side perpetrated the attack, the number of deaths in Syria continues to rise. There is no simple answer to this tricky sociopolitical question without even considering the moral ramifications: In the likely event that Assad is responsible, is Britain morally obliged to get involved? On the other hand, what sort of moral authority does Britain possess as a nation?
There’s the old adage that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, but in a situation where so little is known, all that is clear is that more information is required before a final judgment can be made. For Britain and its allies to rush in could prove as damaging as for it to remain on the sidelines; each day that passes increases the likelihood of further atrocities, the certainty of further deaths yet UN involvement would certainly not be bloodless. It’s an impossible situation. One way or another, a decision must be made, and soon.
