18 March 2003: I remember how I felt when the House of Commons voted to approve military action against Iraq. Sad. But not surprised. Sad because like millions of others, many of whom I marched with, I did not believe the case for war had been made and that we were rushing headlong into a conflict we were likely to make worse. But not surprised because with most Labour and almost all Conservative MPs four-square behind military action the vote was a formality.
29 August 2013: Today, following Parliament’s decision to rule out military action against Syria, I feel both sad and surprised. Sad because though I do not believe the case for intervention has yet been made and I think it quite likely that UK military intervention could make matters worse the option to get involved has been closed down. And surprised because MPs (on all sides) have voted for pre-emptive inaction.
At the start of this week I was dismayed by the headlong rush to war. I was relieved when on Wednesday it became clear that rush had been slowed. It looked like we were adopting the right approach: proceeding cautiously, awaiting the UN inspectors to report, working through our options, ruling nothing out.
I end this week even more dismayed. MPs last night voted to ignore whatever evidence may yet emerge, to turn away from intervening no matter what. I am an internationalist, not an isolationist. It was too soon to approve military action. But it was way too soon to reject it when so much is still unclear. Depressed and ashamed, says Paddy: me too.
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
32 Comments
Ironically, Stephen, most MPs probably support timely, measured, action. It was the Government’s own untimely, unmeasured actions which caused this defeat.
The vote demonstrates that Britain has changed. We are no longer the gung-ho willy wavers of faded Empire. It is right and proper that we should be pursuing solutions through international channels. Now let’s scrap Trident.
“It was too soon to approve military action. But it was way too soon to reject it when so much is still unclear.”
Presumably what you mean is that it was too soon for MPs to vote either way on the issue. Well, the timing of the vote was down to your precious coalition government, wasn’t it?
The vote demonstrates that Britain has changed. We are no longer the gung-ho willy wavers of faded Empire. It is right and proper that we should be pursuing solutions through international channels.
“pursuing solutions through international channels” is a glib euphemism for doing nothing at all and you know it.
I object to the characterisation of the outcome as a headlong rush to inaction. Nobody contributing to this debate either here or in parliament has suggested doing nothing. What parliament has said is that it does not want to give approval for a military course of action based on a very woolly premise.
Also very sad to hear Paddy commenting now on Today. Surely we need to be clear that we continue to be internationalist, this vote does not need to change that. But it does require better leadership. That is what was missing yesterday.
I’m not an isolationist. If I thought that the proposed military strikes were going to achieve anything then I would have been in favour. At best they were going to achieve nothing, with regard to the conflict, but would have resulted in the deaths of innocents. At worst they would have escalated the conflict even further.
When the Khurds had chemical weapons used against them and they were fleeing Iraq we did not go to war but brought in a no fly zone to try to stop the slaughter. The party that took us into an unlawful war in Iraq played party politics last night with the future lives of many innocents in Syria. I know who I feel has blood and napalm on his “hanths” this morning.
@Nigel, and Stephen – indeed ‘headlong rush to inaction’ struck me not just as unfair, but as a tautology.
“, I did not believe the case for war had been made and that we were rushing headlong into a conflict we were likely to make worse. ”
The same belief the majority of the British public quite reasonably hold towards intervention in Syria then, seeing as the objectives of intervention in Syria were not even defined, let alone justified.
“I end this week even more dismayed. MPs last night voted to ignore whatever evidence may yet emerge, to turn away from intervening no matter what. I am an internationalist, not an isolationist. It was too soon to approve military action. But it was way too soon to reject it when so much is still unclear. Depressed and ashamed, says Paddy: me too.”
If there was a genuine case for intervention, it was the fault of the Conservative and Lib Dem party membership, particularly David Cameron, William Hague, and Nick Clegg for not making it.
It was the government that decided to make this a vote ‘on principle’ before any real evidence had emerged establishing Assad’s guilt, and it was the government that pretty much immediately started beating the drums for war… which rightly led the public to suspect the government of being disingenuous and uninterested with the facts of the case.
So it was the governments fault for calling a vote on an unjustified and undefined intervention which any decent and sane MP, in touch with public opinion, would naturally be inclined to vote against. This is an embarrassment for Cameron, Hague, Clegg and the other Lib Dem MPs who vote in favour.
I also think there are some pretty big double standards here. Particularly revealing was when Nick Clegg claimed that we are witnessing frequent use of chemical weapons for the first time in nearly a century- leaving out, of course, Saddam Hussein’s use of these weapons against the Kurds and Iranians,
Someone from the govt has to come up with a coherent explanation as to why it was ok for the US (Reagan) and UK govts (Thatcher) to assist in developing Saddam’s Chemical weapons program, even whilst it was known that he was gassing the Kurds and Iranians (over 100,000 deaths were caused by his use of chemical weapons), and it was ok for these govts to block criticism of his use of these weapons in the security council- but it is now imperative that we intervene when about 300-400 people were killed using chemical weapons in an alleged attack by the Assad regime in Syria?
I am no internationalist, but if firmly believe those who have the capacity to act, should. So I too hold little truck with this pacifism branded as principle.
As I am happy for Britain to be an effective international actor, an “A” power as a German paper recently described it, I’d prefer we were more decisive in enacting the governments will on Syria. However we live in a different world now.
We’ve fended off the pacifism the has infected the continent admirably, but Iraq at the same time as the sandpit threatened to wreck this rearguard action.
I see parliamentary control of war as being the best mechanism we have to ensure an active foreign policy in future, in the face of the rising tide of callous apathy of many of our neighbours.
I would happily see the PM retain this power, but that I fear would only be a faster route to Belgium!
“I end this week even more dismayed. MPs last night voted to ignore whatever evidence may yet emerge, to turn away from intervening no matter what. ”
Stephen given that Parliament passed no resolution it is absolute nonsense to claim this. What happened is that we ended up with a meaningless motion which wasn’t passed. However the symbolism of that motion – in what was an emergency debate – would have created massive momentum for military action. In short it wasn’t what the motion said it was what it meant.
One line in the motion read, “Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity’ – you logic would suggest that Parliament has now voted against the idea of chemical weapons being a war crime.
But the real nonsense in your point is that this is the final, never to be revisited, last word on the matter. If some massively compelling evidence were to emerge that justified military action, absolutely nothing stops Parliament from revisiting the issue.
I think that what happened was one of those moments where the voting system let people down. I imagine that most of those voting for the Government motion would have been happy with the Opposition motion, if only they’d known that the Government motion was going to fail. I haven’t looked at the way each MP voted, but it would be interesting to see an analysis.
My guess is that a different voting system might have produced a different outcome. For example, there were three options tabled (including Caroline Lucas’ amendment), and an Alternative Vote choice between the three probably would have seen the Lucas motion fail first. Supporters of that motion might have had no second choice – thus favouring the Government, otherwise they’ll have supported the Opposition motion. I can’t guess which would have won, but my personal preference would have been for the Opposition motion: I think we need better evidence before proceeding.
Another possible system would be to vote on the options sequentially: starting with the most active.
The trouble is that both these systems are only suitable for relatively simple propositions. For most legislation, it’s best to debate amendments first, and a substantive motion later.
@ Hywel – “the real nonsense in your point is that this is the final, never to be revisited, last word on the matter”
You seriously think there are any circs barring self-defence that would trigger intervention in Syria being brought back to the Commons? Or indeed intervention in the next humanitarian catastrophe? The real nonsense is thinking last night’s vote is just another parliamentary vote: it has far-reaching consequences which I don’t think many MPs considered.
@ Ian Eiloart – I agree. And given there was almost no difference between the Government / Labour motions, it would’ve been preferable for the Government to accept Labour’s – if they’d known they were going to be defeated, which clearly they didn’t.
Well yes – these things stand alone (hence we supported Kosovo without a UN resolution but not Iraq).
What your saying is that MPs who voted a particular way on the facts and circumstances before them are bound because of factors that didn’t influence their vote? Like I said on your analysis Parliament rejected the outlawing of chemical weapons.
I think the real problem here was that Cameron did not feel he had to give Milliband any further ground, gambled on forcing his wording through and failed. People keep saying there was little between the motions, in that case why not take the more statesmanlike approach and state that in order to show a more united front, the Labour amendment would be accepted.
There was also a point in the debate where it appeared that the nationalist leaders had not been made party to all information under privy council rules even though Milliband had been, this was a mistake and it was one that appeared to me (listening on 5 live) to be mocked by some on government benches.
In my mind the Government have no one to blame for this but themselves. Had they waited until the UN process had progressed (we all know any resolution would eventually be vetoed but getting the majority would increase the moral if not legal basis for action) things could have been different. As in 2003 a UK Government was attempting to follow a timetable already set the other side of the Atlantic.
This is what happens when you allow politics become tribal.
My mind is not totally made up on what action should be taken on Syria. That’s why Labour’s motion made more sense to me than the governments.
There was always a substantial risk that the governments motion was going to fail, you only had to listen to the Tory Back Benches to see that Cameron did not have “ALL” of his party on board.
Labour announced well before the vote that they would be voting against the governments motion.
Cameron & Clegg carried on regardless, bulish as always and encouraging tribal politics.
It was this tribalism *No we wont support an opposition amendment* which has given the government a bloody nose.
Like I said, my mind was and still is not made up regarding what we should do about Syria. That is why the Labour motion made more sense, because it called for more time and thinking and analysis of intelligence, which lets face it, was not altogether conclusive or convincing yesterday.
Its was a strange way of getting there but Parliament made the right decision in the end and I am very proud of our Democracy. The vote laid to rest the ghosts of the Iraq war and at last David Kelly will sleep easily in his grave.
Surely, Stephen you noticed the parallels with Iraq? The PM agrees in secret to support the US; the urgency of the decision; no clear evidence that Assad had been responsible for the chemical weapons used; the weapons inspectors still on the ground; not waiting for the report. Only the dodgy dossier was missing!
The emphasis now should be on a diplomatic solution. The UK now has the high moral ground by rejecting precipitate action. We have the means but chose not to use them. We should use that to work for a political solution, which means dialogue with Russia, China and Iran.
The main reason that we have ended up where we are this morning is that Cameron an Clegg completely bungled the whole thing from start to finish. That is where the blame should lie and that is where most commentators from across the political spectrum seem to be putting it. The “ifs”, “ands” and “maybes” of where blame lay, the legality of intervention and UN approval were secondary.
If the Coalition had worked to persuade the doubters rather than cajole them things might have been different. In the early stages the Coalition leadership gave a very good impression of being a bunch of hot-heads rushing headlong into an ill-conceived attack on Syria simply because the Americans had told them to . If Clegg, of all people, could not see that, post-Iraq, this was not going to work then he really is tactically inept.
We have a situation where almost half of the parliamentary party did not back the leader. I am not going to criticise any of our MPs for how they voted, and I’m certainly not going to criticise Nick, who spoke very well in the Commons last night. I totally understand his motivations were purely out of humanitarian concern about the use of weapons of mass destruction. I’ve been split in two over this so I understand why the parliamentary party was, too.
I think the message from the Commons last night was not “none of our business, gov”. That’s certainly how it was from some of the more isolationist elements of the Conservative party, I’ll grant you. But for Liberal Democrats, the dilemma was about evidence, legality and a desire not to make the situation any worse for the Syrian people. I didn’t hear anything during the debate that reassured me on that point. Having said that, Nick’s “inaction is not a decision without consequences” will haunt me too.
I also was surprised to hear, several times in various places from John Humphrys to Andrew George that people are just as dead from conventional weapons as they are from chemical weapons, so why all the fuss about the use of chemical weapons. The obvious answer is that using chemical weapons gives tyrants the chance to kill lots of people at once with not that much effort. Maybe that should have been emphasised a bit more. We really don’t want these things becoming more commonplace, and it’s why anyone touching them with a bargepole, and that means anyone, needs to be dealt with in some way. I’m not saying bombs are the answer because they very rarely are, but we can’t just watch it happen.
And although Lib Dems were not taking an isolationist viewpoint, the likes of UKIP are making hay, saying that people aren’t interested in intervening abroad. If they continue with that , they could start to have an impact on people’s views on international aid as well. We need to do something to counter that.
“@ Hywel – “the real nonsense in your point is that this is the final, never to be revisited, last word on the matter””
Neither Hywel nor Stephen is quite right on this. Yes, in the long term the Commons could hypothetically vote again and vote differently if major new events took place, such as escalated use of chemical weapons by Assad. But we won’t ever get to that long term if the US goes ahead in the short term.
The wisdom of the crowd in Parliament stopped a headlong rush to premature action. The US should recognise what is actually a superior decision-making process, and find their own means to do likewise.
If the US go and drop a few little bombs now, Assad will attack Israel in a limited way. Israel will respond ferociously. Then others will join in.
The US seem to want to impose military logic on an insane leader. Instead they should put rational argument and rational pressure on a leadership who are capable of a rational response – Russia.
The approach to Russia should be – Discipline your puppet Assad, and we’ll help. Or refuse to discipline him, in which case we’ll work to get him overthrown.
I think Parliament voted the right way last night: it simply wasn’t clear what the Government intended by military action, nor how they would achieve their unclear goals. I say this with a heavy heart, though. Many more will die at Assad’s hand, another hundred thousand, for sure. The Government entirely failed to address that particular crime of deliberately targeting non-combatant populations, though.
The important question remains as to what is to be done.
I would like to draw attention to the change of government in Iran. The new government has indicated a willingness to deal less provocatively with Western governments and a tentative desire to avoid further imperialist entanglements in its neighbourhood. Given the long and painful memories in the Iranian populace of chemical warfare, and given the new attitudes expressed in Teheran, surely it is time for the West to talk? Iran is currently funding Hizbollah and Assad and providing thousands of seasoned irregular fighters. Those fighters have tipped the balance in the Civil War. Draw the link between Assad and the use of chemical weapons and it may well be the case that Iran will refuse to support him further. If Hizbollah and the irregulars go home, Assad is toast. He can’t rely solely on air superiority to win a battle for territory.
Caron – some excellent points. I don’t think anyone who abstained or voted against last night feels that we should wash our hands of the situation. Some were concerned about the lack of UN support and others that the kind of attacks being proposed wouldn’t stop Assad from using chemical weapons again and may have escalated the civil war. Jenny Willott’s heartfelt piece on her website sums up this view exceptionally well in my opinion.
In terms of possible non-military actions, Shirley Williams, in her contribution to the Lords debate made an interesting argument about the need to have dialogue with Iran, seeing has how they have historically been against the use of chemical weapons (for those that are interested, here is the Hansard link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/130829-0001.htm#st_18_). I’m not sure that I share Shirley’s view on this, but it’s certainly one of the avenues that now much be explored.
I don’t think any of our MPs came to their decision yesterday lightly, and it’s certainly not a decision I would have relished taking. But on balance, while I don’t think yesterday’s debate and the circus around showed Parliament in a good light at all, I feel the outcome is the right one.
I was someone who supported the invasion of Iraq for humanitarian reasons because I thought that it would rid us of an appalling dictator who had gassed his own people and committed innumerable atrocities. I wanted regime change. But then, when people like me saw Iraq disintegrate into chaos and realized that our well meaning, humanitarian efforts had brought only death and agony to Iraq’s people and had made the situation worse we realized the invasion was a mistake. But what made it hard to bear was the traducing of well meaning people like me by the Liberal Democrats and the suggestion that because we had supported the invasion of Iraq we must be warmongers. That’s why I would never again support action by this country against a dictator in the Middle East. And I believe that’s what millions of the British people feel. By villifying those who supported, misguidedly, the invasion of Iraq the Liberal Democrats have poisoned the well for those who see the appalling suffering yet feel a deep reluctance to do anything about it. You reap what you sow, After what your party said about Iraq it’s hypocrisy over Syria has been astonishing. I’m glad that Ed Milliband and the House of Commons brought about your defeat and stopped your party’s Syrian adventure.
I’ve never voted tory in my life but the best contribution to the debate I heard came from Dr Sarah Wollaston, the tory MP for Totnes. She made several important points, including one about the sale of arms (something the government and Vince Cable promote as in the arms fair taking place in London next month). Not all intervention has to include bombing people. I’m quoting the whole of her contribution as reported in Hansard and this includes interruptions, but I particularly commend the final two paragraphs.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con):
Parliament has done its job today: it has applied the brakes to a headlong rush into unilateral western military action.
The problem with the motion, which is undeniably full of a series of truths, is that it draws one into agreement. However, there is a sting in the tail, which is that it asks us to agree that unilateral western military action is legally justified. I do not agree with that statement. For that reason, I am sorry that I will not support the Government motion tonight.
The country is almost unanimously opposed to unilateral western military intervention. That is not because we are a nation of appeasers and apologists; it is because the nation rightly has weighed up the risks of such action exploding into a wider military conflict with hundreds of thousands more deaths.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con):
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why many of our constituents are so opposed to this debate taking place is that they believe we are about to vote on military action? Of course, that is not the case, as the Prime Minister made clear today.
Dr Wollaston:
The point is that agreeing to the legality of military action inevitably sucks us closer to the cliff’s edge. That is why I will oppose the motion.
Mr Bacon:
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Wollaston:
I will not at this stage.
The Arab League has supported the principle of UN-backed intervention, but it has stated today that it does not back unilateral western military intervention. That is right. It undermines the Arab League when the west constantly steps in and makes decisions instead of allowing it to develop a regional solution that could lead to lasting peace.
We cannot destroy Assad’s arsenal of weapons. That has been made clear. The best that we can do is to deliver a warning. Are we seriously suggesting that no nation in the Arab League is capable of delivering that warning? Is Saudi Arabia not capable of that? If not, what on earth are we doing arming all these nations to the teeth? It is time for the Arab League to step up to the plate and for western countries to recognise that we cannot continue to impose solutions, because those solutions fuel resentment and harden attitudes; they raise the question about the double standards of the west across the middle east.
Where was the world’s policeman in 1985 when Iran was under sustained attack from chemical weapons? It suited the west to support Iraq in that situation. Why did we allow the world’s policeman to weaponise white phosphorus? When white phosphorus contacts the skin and burns as it oxidises, it burns right down to the bone. If that is not a chemical weapon, what is? Why is the world’s policeman allowing the USA to sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia? The point about cluster bombs is that they continue to kill and maim children long after the combatants have left the field. We need to be very clear. Why is the world’s policeman not calling a coup a coup in Egypt? These are the kinds of issues that cause burning resentment across the middle east, with good reason. It is time that we let the Arab League come to a regional solution, if we are going to achieve lasting peace.
To be wary of war is not to stand idly by, but a realistic appraisal of the risks and learning from past experience. The British people are not standing idly by; they are delivering humanitarian aid, but they do not feel that humanitarian aid from the west is best delivered in the form of a cruise missile.
I do not think one evening of debate and the resulting votes means this is an issue which can never come back to the table again.
As a result I’d disagree with the various commentators arguing this signals a move towards isolationism. If the violence worsens, or if harder evidence comes to light which squarely lays the blame for chemical attacks on the Syrian Government, then surely a motion for military action can once again come before Parliament.
I do think that the Government losing the vote last night seemed in part as a result of resentment among MPs feeling they were being rushed towards a decision, not long back from recess, and poor planning by the Government to choose a first motion worded in such a way as to be viewed as a potential ‘back door’ excuse for action on ‘humanitarian’ grounds if needed, before the planned second vote next week.
Policy and principle, yes, but the mechanics of how the motion was handled was also a factor.
And if the situation worsens in Syria, those who last night voted against the Government might in future reflect on that decision.
There is a real difference between an Internationalist in the long Liberal tradition and an Imperialist.
Neither France nor ourselves are any longer the imperial powers in the Arab World, nor have we been for at least half a century. I hope that last night’s events in parliament will help people to understand this better.
Tony
I have some sympathy with this article,
But the reality is the vote was rushed and required MPs to take an unpopular stand based on incomplete evidence,
Ater the vote there was more debate about how this might effect the special relationship than the implications for Syria.. IMO Cameron saw a falklands moment and went in half cocked without testing his or the lib dems party members. This is the kind of vote the usually requires pretty heavy use of the whip.
I too am an internationalist. I would have voted for the government motion. Many of the comments on LDV consider this position abhorrent, although those who voted for it to be traitors to the real cause of Liberal Democracy. This is grossly unfair when the issues concerned are both extremely complex and literally life and death.
I copy here the comment I made on the Syria Opinion article as it is relevant here. “ChThis perhaps – hopefully – is the moment when we stop believing we are a world power. ” We all know that we are not a world power – we are a middle ranking power with important alliances NATO, EU, the Commonwealth and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, with military forces envied by many in the world. Although we have made many mistakes as a nation, we can still be an important force for good in the world including in the difficult area of R2P (responsibility to protect). These are important assets and relationships to build upon and use wisely for the common good. I sincerely hope (and do not believe) that the historic vote on Thursday is a retreat to neo-isolationism for the UK; I do hope it sets in stone that we will never go to war in future without parliamentary approval. And yes, as a Christian, I do believe war … or any military intervention is a last resort . Syria is a truly challenging case for us all to get things right… I would say the most difficult that I have encountered in my life.
@Kath
Agreed on Sarah Wollaston. I nominated her for LDV Best Tory Politician (before this intervention) – if she makes the short-list, please vote for her!
As to the tactical situation there is now no doubt that the failure of the coalition to embrace the Labour amendment led to the outcome. However I think it was the right outcome. I see no possibility of military force by “the West” improving anything in this sorry Syrian situation and much more likely to make it worse. It must not be accepted that “internationalism” necessarily means means military action. We internationalists should now be campaigning for massive aid to be poured into the welfare of the millions of people who have fled Syria.