The much discussed possibility of Syria handing over its chemical weapons to the UN gives further impetus to the thought that intervention – in whatever manifestation – is foolhardy and premature. This diplomatic route should have been explored and exhausted long before Obama and Kerry turned to their military might, however unfruitful they envisaged it to be.
It has seemed that Kerry has been spoiling for a fight from the moment he made his speech on 30th August, in the wake of the chemical weapons attack that killed 1,429 Syrians he used highly emotive language when calm, considered words showing an objective, collected approach would have been far more apt.
“Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home we saw rows of children, lying side by side, sprawled on a hospital floor – all of them dead from Assad’s gas, and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.”
He opened up with this sentiment of horror at the humanitarian disaster but quickly moved onto reasons other than this as to why the US should intervene. The tugging at your heartstrings approach was replaced – and by his apparent emphasis, superseded – with arguments that revolved around the US, the image of innocent child turned to one of the USA not being the kid in charge of the school playground.
“They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say.”
“It matters deeply to the credibility and the future of the United States of America and our allies.”
Kerry specifically mentioned Iran, suggesting they would be “emboldened” and take the USA’s inaction as a sign that they had free rein to do a similar thing to their own people, or to other nations in the region. This argument may have had some credence when Ahmadinejad had his finger permanently hovering over the red button (as the USA and Daily Mail liked to inform us), but this should fall on deaf ears now he’s been consigned to the history books. The new President, Rouhani, seems to be far more amiable, with a less itchy trigger finger. It seems outlandish to consider a man who has just won what has appeared to be a clean, democratic election as a likely candidate for gassing the people that put him into power. Kerry’s will to flex his nation’s muscles seems to be followed by the Lib Dem, Lord Paddy Ashdown.
“We are a hugely diminished country this am. MPs cheered last night. Assad, Putin this morning. Farage too as we plunge towards isolationism.”
Ashdown, the ex special forces soldier, took to twitter not to condemn the attacks or al-Assad, but to voice his fear that we wouldn’t be invited to dine at the top table anymore. He demonstrated that the political game and hierarchy had overtaken the humanitarian arguments, with political points scoring taking it’s place in situ at the top of the agenda. However, our country’s democratic legitimacy was significantly heightened after the vote in the Commons. The vote wasn’t a win for the party whips, it was a win for the MP’s that came to their own conclusions and echoed the general consensus amongst the British public. Ashdown may not have liked the result, but Obama soon followed our lead and went to Congress to attempt to gain approval. The call for a second vote should not be listened to, it can’t become like the referendums for Welsh devolution, let’s keep going back until we get the answer we want.
Kerry, also an ex military man, further suggested that the security of the USA and its allies – I think that includes the UK at the moment – would be at risk if we were to stand back. But I consider the complete opposite to be nearer the truth, the more we act where we aren’t wanted, the bigger the target we become.
A “satanic intervention against a satanic regime”
Haytham al-Manna, spokesman of the National Coordination Committee (NCC)
The quote above, from the Syrian rebels gives weight to this thought. However obvious it appears to us, our idea of democracy, due process and the rule of law are completely different to the long held views of those things in the Middle East. Our ideologies may well seem to be the way forward, but however good they are, the Middle East does not want anything imposed upon it by the USA, let alone a completely new political and lawful ideology.
But, arguably Syria and the wider region needs such a transformation. In my opinion, Syria doesn’t need a B-52 flying over Damascus, it needs liberal capitalism. Syria’s GDP amounts to £2,122 per person each year, it won’t come as a surprise that Egypt sees a similar, dreadfully low figure. With widespread poverty like this what would even the most saintly of democratic governments be able to achieve? The Middle East and North Africa account for less than 1% of the world’s non-fuel exports, furthermore, the Middle East’s entire manufacturing output is less than that of the Philippines. When you add in a young population with little future prospects, a dictator with little interest for the development of the nation and an endemic unrest in the surrounding region, it’s no wonder that we find ourselves in this situation.
It is in al-Assad’s direct interest to prevent free-market capitalism from developing, those that would take the opportunity to better themselves would be far better placed to threaten and ultimately dispose of him. A complete political and economical transformation is much required, so does this lead to the conclusion that al-Assad should be ousted by the USA and friends? No, how are we to know that the Syrian rebels are any better placed to deliver this? All that is certain is that some US born missiles will do little to solve the underlying issues.
There are reasons far closer to home as to why the West, and specifically the UK, shouldn’t be involved in any Syrian intervention. Our government is fixated with economic growth and cutting the deficit, a strike on Syria would detrimentally impact upon their plans, whether these plans are right or wrong is a blog for another day. No one is able to guarantee that a strike on Syria would not lead to more unrest in the Middle East, the world’s major player in the oil industry. China seemed to be convinced that military intervention would do no good for the world economy.
An attack on Syria “will definitely have a negative impact on the world economy”
China’s deputy finance minister at the G20 summit
The finance minister also endorsed IMF forecasts that say military intervention would result in a $10 increase in the price of oil, cutting economic output by 0.25% globally. That may not seem a lot, but it’s a colossal figure when one thinks of Cameron and Miliband arguing about a thousand here and there when it comes to the unemployment figures.
Another economic argument exists, based on the financial cost of military action. It would be almost impossible to convince the UK public of the benefits of a multi million pound campaign as public services and public sector jobs face cuts. A few missiles may not put too much of a dent in our £160 billion annual deficit but fusses have been made over far less expensive things, think winter fuel allowance.
The UK public will take some convincing after the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, we went into those countries with no exit strategy. In this case we don’t have an entrance strategy, let alone an exit one. Furthermore, if we were to intervene what would constitute an accomplished mission? Would it be simply the destruction of all Syria’s chemical weapons or the toppling of al-Assad? Ask two politicians and you would receive ten different answers. Merely stopping the use of chemical weapons seems bizarre to me. In short, if this was our aim we would be saying to al-Assad: don’t use the things that killed less than 2,000 people, but carry on with what you were previously doing. You know, that bit where 80,000 died and over a million were thrown out of their homes and fled over the border, that bit is fine, best of luck to you.
Syria is enough of a mess as it is, I’m just not sure our missiles can make it any better.
The Penwarden Review 
Leave a comment