‘Why I’m voting no to airstrikes’ – Kerry

As you will know, the House of Commons will be voting on the question of whether or not to authorise UK strikes in Syria against ISIL on December 2. Other parliamentary business, including Prime Minister’s Questions, has been set aside to allow a full day’s debate, starting at 11.30am with voting at 10pm.

I will be present in the Chamber for much of the debate, and will listen carefully to what is said on both sides, but I will be voting against the Government’s motion tomorrow. This is not a decision I have taken lightly, or without extensive research, reflection, and discussion with colleagues.

I also respect the integrity of those Labour MPs who have reached a different conclusion to me. As I have said before, decisions on whether or not to commit the UK to military action are the hardest that Parliament has to make.

ISIL is a hideous organisation, as we have seen from the beheadings, the mass graves, crucifixions, enslavement and systematic rape of women, throwing gay men off the roofs of buildings, and countless other atrocities. It is a threat to democracy and to global stability.

The one thing that unites everyone in Parliament is that this group must be defeated. To do so, we must both remove ISIL’s territorial presence, and confront the extremist ideology it represents. I am in no doubt that we should do so, but I am not convinced that the proposals being put forward by the Prime Minister are the way to do it.

While I will vote against air strikes, I do not accept in their entirety the arguments that have been put to me against intervention.

Many constituents have expressed their fears that intervention in Syria would significantly increase the risk of attacks on the UK. Of course, the security of British citizens is of paramount importance to me as an MP, but it is clear that ISIL and similar groups already pose a substantial threat to us all.

The horrific attacks in Paris last month are a reminder of this. It could easily have taken place on British soil. And of course, we should not forget the deaths of 30 British holidaymakers in Tunisia earlier this year.

British intelligence agencies have revealed that seven ISIL plots targeting Britain have been foiled in the last year alone, and that there is a clear connection between the threats we face and ISIL headquarters in Raqqa. It should also be noted that we are already involved in action against ISIL in Iraq, and are providing support to other countries for action against ISIL in Syria.

I also believe that, contrary to some claims, Britain would have a legal basis to act in Syria. The UN Resolution (no. 2249) condemning ISIL and calling for member states to ‘take all necessary measures…to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL’ was a major achievement, and firmly supports the legal case for intervention.

I know too that it is important for many Labour Party members that the conditions of our conference motion on military intervention in Syria are met, and I am confident they have been.

Labour has always been an internationalist, not an isolationist, party. I believe strongly that we should stand in solidarity with not just the people of France, Tunisia, Lebanon, and other countries targeted by extremism, but also the people living under the oppression of ISIL.

The UK does have a responsibility to stand with those who believe in freedom and democracy, and to act to uphold human rights on a global scale. We should not simply ‘leave it to others’; this would be an abdication of responsibility. This was a very strong factor in my mind as I considered the case for intervention.

Despite all this, I find myself unable to vote for the Government’s motion. I do not believe that the Prime Minister has made a convincing case for air strikes in Syria, and feel that some fundamental questions have remained unanswered. As a result, I am not satisfied that the Government has a clear vision about how this action will defeat ISIL and lead to long-term peace and stability in the region. 

The conflict in Syria is incredibly complex, and is distinct from the situation in Iraq, where the UK’s assistance has been requested by a democratically-elected government. Our Prime Minister has been unable to explain in any detail what the purpose of British air strikes would be. For instance, if these strikes would aim to defeat ISIL or just degrade its capabilities, and the role or number of moderate Sunni opposition troops in Syria.

It is also unclear what British air strikes would add to those of other countries – particularly the US, Russia, Turkey, and the Gulf states – many of which have conflicting visions for a post-war Syria, and views on the position of Bashar al-Assad going forward. There are serious questions about the availability and capacity of ground troops: questions which the Prime Minister has been unable so far to answer.

I voted against the coalition Government’s proposals two years ago to intervene in Syria because of a similar lack of clarity. The fact that approval of this motion would have brought us into the Syrian Civil War on the opposite side only complicates matters further.

Obviously I have taken into account lessons to be learnt from previous military intervention, including the 2003 decision on Iraq, and the aftermath of those conflicts, whilst being careful to judge this decision on its own facts. We should learn from history, but not be bound by it.

I am also very mindful that protection of civilians, many of whom have already suffered terribly at the hands of ISIL or the Assad regime, should be a paramount concern. We also need a comprehensive strategy for delivering humanitarian assistance to refugees, both in Europe and in the countries bordering Syria. And, of course, we need to step up efforts to combat radicalisation amongst young people in our own country.

As I have already said, I do not want us to stand on the side lines while ISIL commits atrocities and extends its tentacles across the region. I believe it is of the utmost importance, for our national security and for humanitarian reasons, that ISIL is defeated. The obvious question is what other action can be taken to counter ISIL.

Clearly, more needs to be done to identify and cut off ISIL’s revenue streams, including from the sale of oil. As our Foreign Affairs Select Committee has said, we need to work with our international partners to address the underlying crises in Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, there needs to be a political solution which leaves the country with a strong and truly inclusive government to heal the rifts there. Similarly, a permanent solution needs to be found to the Syrian civil war, the best hope of which seems to currently be through the Vienna peace talks.

I would not rule out voting for military action against ISIL in Syria under different circumstances. As I have said, I believe very strongly in our international obligations, and in standing shoulder-to-shoulder with other countries facing the threat of terrorism. But I cannot be confident that the long-term consequences of the Government’s proposals have been fully considered, and so I cannot support them.

Kerry McCarthy is the Labour MP for Bristol East. This piece was first published on her blog, www.kerrymccarthymp.org