I have received hundreds of emails
regarding the upcoming vote on airstrikes in Syria. Of these, nearly every
single one has voiced opposition to the airstrikes. Scotland is a progressive,
peaceful nation, and the response I have received from so many has only
confirmed this.
The primary concern of many
constituents has been the present humanitarian crisis in Syria, and concerns that
airstrikes will result in even more deaths of innocent civilians. I share these
same concerns. During the last two months, Russian airstrikes in Syria have
killed 485 civilians, including 117 children. US coalition airstrikes on Syria are
estimated to have killed between 459 and 591 non-combatants, including 100
children. Despite advanced technology, mistakes can be made. Millions have lost
their homes and have been forced to flee the violence. I fail to see how
contributing to this humanitarian crisis by dropping even more bombs will help.
Many have raised the parallels with
the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as the
airstrikes on Libya in 2011. I agree that these parallels exist, and in my
opinion, based upon the precedent set by these recent military interventions,
any airstrikes in Syria will make the situation worse. Ultimately, a long-term
solution is needed, comprised of post-conflict reconstruction efforts and the establishment
of peace and stability. Neither past precedent established by recent UK
governments, nor the recent proposals given by the Prime Minister instil confidence
that these factors will be prioritised. The failure by the UK and US to establish
peaceful, stable governance in Iraq has meant that it has become failed state
and breeding ground for terrorist organisations. More recently, the UK spent 13
times as much bombing Libya than it did providing reconstruction efforts. The
failure to support significant reconstruction in Libya has resulted in
lawlessness and the emergence of numerous radical splinter groups attempting to
take power. The Prime Minister has committed to spending £1 billion on
reconstruction in Syria, less than 1% of the $170 billion reconstruction cost estimated
by the World Bank. Given that failure to provide sufficient reconstruction
efforts have been a key explanatory factor as to why UK intervention in the
Middle East and North Africa over the past 15 years has resulted in chaos and
the death of thousands of innocent civilians, rather than long-term peace, I
fail to see how the Prime Minister’s proposals will contribute to a long-term
solution whatsoever.
The
Prime Minister has claimed that there are 70,000 moderate fighters in Syria who
could seize territory currently held by ISIS. However, these claims have not
been substantiated. Syria has a shifting political landscape encompassing
thousands of fighting forces and numerous splinter groups. Julian Lewis, the
Chairman of the Defence Committee, has raised serious concerns about the
loyalties of these fighters, and worried that “we [may] look back on this
moment as hav[ing] made a big mistake on the base of misleading information
that was given.” Even the Defence Secretary has raised doubt about the capacity
of these 70,000 troops. Military intervention without a coherent plan for
establishing peace will only make the situation worse, and the Prime Minister
has failed to provide a plan for anything but increasing violence and human
suffering.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the
best way to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, defeat ISIS and establish a
peaceful, stable state in Syria is not through airstrikes. International peace
talks are being held in Vienna and have made substantial progress. On 14
November 2015, a timetable was agreed to which would see talks between the
regime and the opposition resume in January, a transitional government in 2016
and elections in 2017. The UK is currently in a powerful position to drive forward
diplomatic efforts, as it “hasn’t yet prejudiced its position” in Syria, as stated
in evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee by Dr Rim Turkmani.
Alongside diplomacy, the UK has the
capacity in its role as a leader in the global financial sector to drive
efforts to cut off funding to ISIS. Cutting
off finance is, in many ways, the modern version of cutting off an army’s
supply lines. And through the UK’s current advantageous diplomatic position,
the UK could make huge contributions to restricting regional sources of finance
and disrupting illegal trade along Syria’s borders. Additionally, Scotland’s
role as a player in the global oil industry means that this influence could be used
to cut off any income ISIS gains from selling oil. Without any sources of
income, ISIS would be unable to fund its ongoing campaign of terror and
violence.
Ultimately, airstrikes in Syria
will result in the deaths of even more innocent civilians, and will further
exacerbate the current humanitarian and refugee crises. The failure of David
Cameron to provide a robust plan for reconstruction means any airstrikes run
the serious risk of turning Syria into another failed state and breeding ground
for future terrorist organisations, rather than establishing a peaceful, stable
state. It is for these reasons that I will be voting against airstrikes in
Syria today.