On the 27th of August Prime Minister David Cameron announced via Twitter that Parliament would be recalled on Thursday the 29th of August to discuss the UK response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The Motion Before MPs
As of the evening before the recall, the text of the Government’s motion on which MPs will get the opportunity to vote was not available from an official source. An unsourced, uncited, text described as the motion was posted on politics.co.uk at just after 6pm. As this wasn’t from an official source like a government website, or parliament’s website it lacked credibility. It could have been the motion to be put before parliament, or it might have been something the government leaked to the media so it could test the public reaction to it.
Cambridge’s MP Julian Huppert pointed to a copy of the supposed Government motion published by the Telegraph when asking his constituents to let him know their views on it.
The text of the motion and amendments by the Labour opposition and by other MPs was only published by Parliament at around 8am on the morning of the debate and vote, via a PDF document only.
The way the UK Parliament goes about making decisions, even on matters as important as military action, is in sharp contrast to the way a local council might act in advance of a vote on painting some new double yellow lines. In local government proposals are published a week or so in advance and typically are accompanied by detailed reports by officers. Publication of proposals in advance enables elected reps to carefully consider them and canvass views on them before entering the debate and vote.
There is an argument that there’s a need to respond quickly; however I don’t think that means there’s any excuse for our democratic systems not operating as openly and transparently as possible.
Motion Text
The government motion starts:
This house deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime
There is no dossier of evidence published to support the claims. That the Assad regime were responsible for the use of the weapons appears to be still under dispute. It is being reported that the USA may publish the evidence they have that the Syrian state was responsible for the use of the weapons on Thursday; this raises the prospect of key information becoming available while the commons debate is in progress. It is being reported that the evidence is based on an intercepted communication in which:
an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people
This doesn’t appear strong evidence the state ordered the attack.
An argument being put forward by the USA is no one but the state had the capability to carry out the attack, but they don’t address the question of if, for example a rogue unit defected to the opposition, rather than the attack being directed by the state.
The key element of the motion states:
a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on savings lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;
This appears to be asking MPs to authorise military action, though later it adds:
Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.
with this caveat the entire motion appears vacuous. There’s little substantive content.
A vote for the motion as it is could perhaps though reasonably interpreted to support military action by other countries.
The motion as a whole appears to show the signs of the reported chopping and changing it underwent in negotiations with MPs from all sides during Wednesday. It ends:
[This house] Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.
though the version of the motion published in the media wouldn’t if passed give approval for any action in Syria anyway.
Requirement for a Specific United Nations Resolution
The government motion states:
a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible
While I agree with this I don’t think the UK or any other country ought feel it is unable to do what it considers morally right thing without the support of the UN security council.
There is a question of if the UN’s adoption of a “responsibility to protect” principle means that a specific security council resolution isn’t required before military action aimed at presenting further use of chemical weapons in Syria could commence and be considered to effectively be pre-approved by the UN. My view is the existing UN security council resolutions do not endorse such action without a further specific resolution. Section 4 of UN resolution 1674 (2005) affirms paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document which refer to collective decisive action, including under Chapter 7 of the UN charter which relates to the use of military force, but the UN charter itsself and the summit outcome document make clear such action ought be through, or to give effect to, decisions of the UN security council.
My View
The footage from Syria of people suffering the effects of chemical weapons shows how indescribably horrific their use is. These images will have been seen by a new generation, who’ve not seen images from the use of chemical weapons in Iraq as they emerged. If there’s a positive to come out of it hopefully it will be a resolve to do everything possible to prevent use of these weapons ever again.
As well as seeking to reduce the threat of repeated use of chemical weapons within Syria our MPs need to try and ensure their actions don’t make the rest of the world, including the UK less safe. I think Cambridge’s MP ought have reducing risk of chemical weapons being used on the streets of Cambridge or London in his mind when deciding on a course of action.
Chemical weapons which indiscriminately kill and injure hundreds or thousands of people, are, like nuclear and biological weapons, different from conventional weapons and we need to ensure the progress that has been made under the Chemical Weapons Convention continues, and we move to a world where no-one holds these weapons ready to use.
We don’t yet know enough about what happened in Syria on the 21st of August to be in a position to discuss a response to that event. Even prior to that event other countries ought to have been considering how to respond to the production, weaponisation, and alledged uses of chemical weapons in Syria.
If MPs are to consider approving military action they need to know details of at least what the aims of the action are, what the risks are and what the long term plan is for restoring peace and security. If the UK, with the USA and others thinks there is a serious threat of another incident of chemical weapons use which could again indiscriminately kill hundreds or thousands of people and if there’s the capacity to stop that then taking preventative action should be considered.
I would rather see the huge amounts of money and effort military action would require spent on education and persuasion; on inspections, investigations, research and bringing those who have committed war crimes to justice in a public and transparent manner with an aim of deterring future use of chemical (or potentially worse, biological or nuclear) weapons.
I think this kind of decision shows the value of representative democracy. MPs have a duty to inform themselves as best they can before taking a decision and I’m sure Cambridge’s MP Julian Huppert will do his duty diligently in this case.
Huppert has asked his constituents for their views:
Have you read the motion on #syria? http://t.co/VFNmAnYsfX What do you think of it? #fb
— Julian Huppert (@julianhuppert) August 28, 2013
I don’t think he should support the government motion as it is. We don’t yet know enough about the event the government is seeking to respond to.
18 responses to “MPs to Vote on UK Response to Use of Chemical Weapons In Syria”
No amendment from the Labour opposition has been published, the only amendment on Parliament’s agendais that proposed by MPs Caroline Lucas, Paul Flynn, Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Jonathan Edwards and Hywel Williams. It proposes replacing the government motion with:
I think the government should operate as transparently as possible. The advice and information they are working on, including legal advice should be published, with material kept secret only when there is a very good reason such a the protection of sources (be those sources individuals or technologies).
As I’ve written above I agree “there is no UN authorisation for military action” but think it’s right for countries to act alone if they can be confident their actions are justified and will have a positive outcome.
I don’t think there’s anything objectionable in the proposed amendment.
I would rather see MPs voting to guide the government (and hopefully nudge the USA and other governments) in its response. MPs should be clearly guiding the Prime Minister. I’d hope MPs would make it clear in the debate that they are deeply concerned by the use of chemical weapons in Syria and want to protect people from these weapons’ horror wherever in the world they are. I’d like to see MPs urge extreme caution and thinking many steps ahead before military action is considered.
Involvement or not of UK forces isn’t really key here; more important is influence the UK, perhaps working with other countries, can exert over the USA.
I view the current government motion as in effect being on supporting military action by others. If a future motion was to consider action by the UK I would hope that it would clearly set out the aims of action (ie. how success would be measured) and be accompanied by an assessment of the expected risks and benefits of action; including the long term risks, on the basis of which MPs can take a judgement.
The Green amendment was not selected for debate by the speaker. Cambridge MP Julian Huppert and others have submitted it as an “EDM” presumably so those who support it have a way of making that known:
The BBC has just reported the Labour party is “pushing ahead with its own amendment”. The agenda has not yet been updated with a copy. It may be the text of the amendment will not be formally published until it appears in Hansard three hours after it is introduced to the commons.
While not yet officially published; Labour MP Tom Watson has published what he says is the Labour amendment :
I think that motion is the best of those on offer. It should clarify that those are the criteria for UK military action against the Syrian state; it may be action judged most appropriate would be against a rogue element of the state, or the opposition, or terrorist groups within the country. Condition (2) would make no sense if it was action against within Syria but not against the state was proposed.
The Labour motion covers the risk assessment point, though could perhaps do so more clearly ie. rather than “have regard to…” an assessment of potential consequences should be presented to MPs before they are asked to vote again.
A Conservative MP was just told by a BBC news presenter Labour had submitted an amendment; the MP said he wasn’t aware of that and it was the first he’d heard of it.
This shows the importance of getting such things published by official sources so people know where to find them. If the MP wasn’t aware of the amendment what hope is there of his constituents finding it and letting him know their views on it?
Sky News has published a letter to the UK Parliament from the Speaker of the Syrian Parliament; he asks that the letter be read out at the start of the debate.
The letter urges MPs not to approve strikes on the Syrian state which would weaken their ability to tackle the common enemy of al-Qaeda.
Two hours before the debate in Parliament starts the UK Government has published a document: Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime: UK government legal position
It states the UK Government thinks it would be right to take military action even if the UN Security Council did not support it and describes the type of military action envisaged:
A letter from the Joint Intelligence Committee has now been published. It states:
and:
It doesn’t explain why the possibility of a rogue unit using the weapons has been discounted.
Cambridge MP Julian Huppert has described a section of the Government motion as a “cock up” which “will be corrected”. The section referred to states:
Huppert has said the quote is from the Arab League and not the United Nations.
Interestingly a document published by the BBC purporting to the motion on the evening before the vote contained :
This shows the haste in which the motion has been drafted; and the importance of getting the documents from official sources – the document published by the BBC was not that the government submitted to parliament. The Telegraph also published material purporting to be the Government’s motion but which differs from that published by Parliament
Huppert consulted his constituents, asking for their views on the motion as published by the Telegraph. It would have been far preferable for Parliament to have published the motion in a more timely manner allowing MPs to refer to the actual text to be voted on when seeking views from those they represent.
The speaker accepted a request to correct the motion. He said the corrected motion is available in the “vote office”. I think it would have been more useful had he made the actual text MPs are voting on, online.
Richard says: “I would rather see the huge amounts of money and effort military action would require spent on education and persuasion; on inspections, investigations, research and bringing those who have committed war crimes to justice in a public and transparent manner with an aim of deterring future use of chemical (or potentially worse, biological or chemical) weapons.”
Me too. I think that’s a far better deterrent, if not to Assad then to other nations who might/do support him.
I didn’t support the Government motion either.
I wonder what this result will do for the UK’s relationship with the USA; and our influence in the world, on our ability to moderate the actions of the USA.
Elsewhere it has been pointed out that this is not about our international standing, it’s about helping Syria. I remain convinced that military action would not help in the slightest so I applaud our MP Julian Huppert for sticking to his principles and voting against it. Your suggestion of investigation and prosecution of the guilty is still the best one so far. It’s proportionate and legal.
Julian Huppert has signed up to two EDMs:
453:
I don’t think there’s anything to disagree with there.
EDM 450 which Huppert has also signed states:
I’m a supporter of democracy and want to see a strong parliament and I agree with the sentiment of this motion.
The word “normally” needs a lot of expansion though. I would expect any individual member of the armed forces to act on their own initiative in some circumstances, to protect their own and others’ lives. The Prime Minister also needs to be free to act in an emergency, or where an opportunity presents itself to save lives, and then to be held to account afterwards. Trying to set parameters for such action before an event occurs is very difficult; but that’s what I think MPs should be seeking to do. This opens up a broad question about the command and control of our armed forces.
I often think there’s a similarity between what MPs do and the work of those who write horoscopes. MPs want a wide variety of people to see something in what they’re doing which applies to them and accords with their views.
The motion Huppert supports doesn’t mention which bit of parliament has to hold a debate; it could be the Lords, or a Westminster Hall debate. The motion also doesn’t demand a vote, or say the outcome of any vote must be supportive to approve military action.
Twitter user JohnFuchsia from Cambridge has written, in relation to the use of chemical weapons in Syria:
I disagree with this sentiment. I don’t think it’s ever right to ignore mass murder.
How close to home do we have to wait before we stop considering things “our problem”? It’s a small planet we live on; large scale use of chemical weapons anywhere on it is something which concerns me.
How close, or how bad, do things have to get before they are considered “our problem”?
Richard, it is not our problem. It is the world’s problem and we should wait for the UN. We are not in a position either militarily or financially to support action and I am always perturbed when we only propose action when the USA does. I would feel better able to support action if we were also more concerned when other countries experienced war and atrocity.
Even Obama has recognised that public opinion might not support action by passing the buck to Congress. Everyone needs to wait for the UN report on the inspection to see if it provides the conclusive evidence and then decide.