UNITED KINGDOM
A call for U.K. military action in Syria in response to the al- leged use of chemical weap- ons sparked an emergency debate in the U.K. House of Commons.
four days before it was due to sit. His interpretation of events was that the Prime Minister had expected to present the House with a case for imminent military action but concern expressed by the Opposition and others had forced him to back away from that position. Mr McNeil expressed support for the Opposition amendment and stated his party’s intention to vote against the main motion if the House did not agree it.
Supporting the government’s motion, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr Richard Ottaway, MP, (Con) expressed a degree of scepticism about the intelligence case and legal basis for action. He said that many Members had “their fingers burnt” when voting for the Iraq war and would be more likely to be sceptical about military action. Nonetheless, justifying his support for the motion, he said “we can behave like a minor nation with no real international responsibilities and put our head in the sand, or we can live up to the expectations that the world community has of us”.
Opposing the motion, Rt Hon. Sir Gerald Kaufman, MP, (Lab), questioned the idea of military action to “punish” President Assad for the use of chemical weapons. Sir Gerald asked what this would do to improve the situation in Syria and expressed his view that “an Assad punished would be worse than an Assad as he is now”. Rt Hon. David Davis, MP, (Con) expressed a similar position, questioning the evidence that the Assad government had been directly responsible for the chemical weapons attacks and asking whether Western intervention would in turn lead to
Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP
further Russian support for the Syrian Government, escalating the conflict further. Mr George Galloway, MP, (Respect) questioned the government’s support for the Syrian Opposition, and cited videos of atrocities that had been circulating on the internet. In common with a number of other speakers, he questioned the intelligence that held the Syrian Government responsible for the chemical weapons attacks. Ms Caroline Lucas, MP, (Green) summed up the views of many in the House, saying Members were united in their condemnation of the chemical attacks in Syria and wanted an outcome to ensure peace in that country, but “I remain to be convinced that a military attack would deter, rather than escalate, conflict in the region”. Winding up for the Opposition the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP, (Lab) said that the Opposition amendment provided a road map for taking a decision on military action. The amendment required “compelling evidence”
of the involvement of the Assad Government – a phrase that he noted was missing from the government motion. He said that the amendment would also require the United Nations Security Council to have considered and voted upon the evidence of involvement. He stressed that the vote need not necessarily be unanimous, but said “such a vote—and, let us freely acknowledge, quite probably a veto—in the Security Council of the United Nations would also make clear where each member of the Security Council stood”
Concluding the debate for the government the Deputy Prime Minister, Rt Hon. Nick Clegg, MP, (Lib Dem), stressed that the “the sole aim [of the motion] is to relieve humanitarian suffering by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons—nothing more, nothing less. It is not about invasion, regime change, entering into the Syrian conflict, arming the rebels or boots on the ground”. He repeated the view of the Joint Intelligence Committee
The Parliamentarian | 2013: Issue Four | 343
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124