How did I do?
I wrote this early last Weds morning; before the (watered down) Syria
motion was published (when I wrote it everyone expected the motion to
permit military action immediately). Before Ed M started putting down
conditions for his support; when everyone thought the bombing would
start around Friday. and of course, before the vote.
How did I do?
The media is full of folk pontificating that 'something must be done
about' Syria. There’s an implication in the fact that Miliband was
called into Downing Street yesterday, that it’s been decided that the
'something' involves flying cruise missiles into buildings where we
suspect bad things happen. Parliament’s recalled and we all look forward
to seeing if we’re going to be presented with a dodgy dossier and a
refusal to publish the Attorney General’s legal advice (ring any
bells?).
Yet in the midst of all this, my lot are strangely silent. Nick’s
identikit statement to Cameron’s aside, there’s been almost nothing
said, in the mainstream media or on social media, by anyone in the Lib
Dems since it was announced that there’s going to be a vote. I can
hazard a guess why.
Last time Parliament was asked to support military advice, there was a
UN resolution already in place, and the remit of the military was clear –
they were to protect civilians. Not too hard to support that. But this
time it’s rather different.
Firstly, there’s no UN resolution in place. As the House of Commons Defence Committee Report on the Libyan conflict made clear: "we
are concerned that the abstentions of five Council members,
particularly the veto wielding countries of Russia and China, may make
obtaining United Nations support more difficult for similar situations
in the future".
They had that right.
Secondly, there’s apparently no mandate here to defend civilians, nor
any pretence of such. This is about punishment. Setting down a marker.
Letting other chemical weapon-hording dictators know that there’s a red
line you just don’t cross. You can almost hear advisers whispering in
Cameron’s ear that "there’s only one language these people understand".
Thirdly, when Lib Dem MPs voted to 'defend civilians', I suspect most
expected it not to extend far beyond enforcing the no-fly zone requested
by some members of the Arab League. I wonder how many of those trooping
through the lobby realised they were voting for regime change by
military intervention (recall that the NATO operation was shut down just
11 days after the death of Gadaffi). What wording will they be asked to
support this time – and what lies behind those words?
These are difficult issues for all MPs. But for the Lib Dems, with our
proud record of opposing the Iraq war, it’s especially hard. Of course
Iraq-is-not-Libya-is-not-Syria. But until there’s a UN resolution, and
clear proof of who used chemical weapons on whom, it’s hard to see how
Lib Dems can support military action. And sure the Prime Minister can
tell us he’s seen that proof. But we’ve been there before, haven’t we?
I suspect Lib Dem MPs are under severe pressure to do what the political
glitterati are telling them is their, ahem, moral duty, but in their
heart of hearts they know the evidence hasn’t yet been presented to them
to make that case. And while they are leaving the door open - hence
their silence - the wider political leadership is going to have to work a
lot harder to get them on side.
At least I hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment