Our best hope of reducing the numbers radicalised would be to champion a foreign policy based on clear principles.
Our best hope of reducing the numbers radicalised would be to champion a foreign policy based on clear principles
Every vote I cast in Parliament weighs heavily on my mind, especially as, unlike most other MPs, I have no whip telling me what to do – I consider the evidence, reflect on the principles I was elected to stand up for, listen to my constituents in Brighton Pavilion.
Never more so than on a day like today, when MPs are deciding whether to carry out air strikes in Iraq against the so called Islamic State (ISIL).
Whatever we decide people will die. Be it directly at the hands of ISIL, whose barbarity seems to know no limits. Or when they are hit by bombs dropped by the US, France or the UK.
And, of course, people are dying as a result of the humanitarian crisis engulfing the region – the Refugee Council tell me it’s the first time since the Second World War that the number of people worldwide who are fleeing their homes is more than 50 million, and the conflicts in the Middle East are a key driver of this exodus.
The death toll from the crisis in Syria is heading towards 200,000. Getting aid to all Syrians and Iraqis in need must remain one of the UK’s top priorities.
Amongst the questions I have asked myself ahead of today’s vote is how best to help close down the cycles of violence, which are taking so many lives.
There are no easy answers. But there is this certainty: killing people rarely kills their ideas.
The hateful ideology of ISIL must be stopped but the risk is that air strikes will be counterproductive: every Western bomb dropped will fuel it anew, providing fertile recruitment, fundraising and propaganda opportunities.
I don’t think this is like the last Iraq war. I don’t think that the prime minster is manipulating intelligence or lying to the House.
There is much in the government’s motion with which I agree. It is written in a measured and very reasonable-sounding tone. But the considered, thoughtful tone cannot get away from the bottom line, which is to give permission for the UK to bomb Iraq. Nor can it mask that what is often called ‘precision bombing’ is rarely precise. We should be under no illusion that we are debating whether to go to war.
With virtually everyone on the government and opposition benches looking set to vote for air strikes, there is a real danger too that diplomatic and political solutions are side lined yet further – and possibly even made more difficult.
The real question should not be whether to bomb but how we can intensify work politically and diplomatically to address the fundamental hostility between Sunnis and Shias – with regional powers such as Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia centre stage and support for a fledgling new Iraqi government to deal with seemingly intractable problems like the failures of the Iraqi armed forces, sharing of oil revenues, decentralisation demands and territorial disputes a top priority.
Also uppermost in my mind, in a week where it’s been revealed that a young man from Brighton has been killed whilst fighting for ISIL in Syria, is that there is nothing Islamic about what this extremist group are doing. That as well as embarking upon a concerted effort to find a political solution to the current crisis, we must also redouble our efforts to tackle the radicalisation of some members of our communities, and redouble our efforts to address deeply worrying levels of anti-Muslim sentiment and incidents.
Our best hope of reducing the numbers radicalised would be to champion a new foreign policy doctrine based on clear principles, consistently applied. This should not include selling arms to brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It should not include tolerating war crimes in Gaza. We must stand up for international law.
Being the only Green MP can be lonely at times, especially on days like today. But my inbox this morning is full of messages from constituents urging me to vote against air strikes and I know that when I stand up and oppose the government’s motion, I am representing the views of many.
58 Responses to “Killing people rarely kills their ideas”
Leon Wolfeson
I was (of course) talking about the against original Assad which was on the table. And “Local allies” need air support. We’ve seen this time and again.
The war in Iraq worked fine. The peace was messed up, politically. Changing how the battle was fought wouldn’t have changed that.
And that you don’t think Britain has morals…
Paul Arscott
Bombing Assad’s forces would have made them weaker, accelerating the pace at which IS forces would have fomented and, if anything, made the situation worse. Many of the local nations have extremely competent air forces, supplied by us and trained by us. Maybe it’s time they took their toys out of the hanger and used them?
I never criticised the way in which the war’s military action took place although, lord knows, there are plenty of operations that were more luck than judgement and many other command failures, both political and military that exacerbated matters after military operations began winding down. My criticism was levelled specifically at the hand-wavy way in which post-invasion peace was to be maintained. I never mentioned anything about military operations in my previous post so I’m not sure where you got that?
A nation state is incapable of morals. It’s not a person and is incapable of having anything other than a declared moral stance chosen moment to moment based on political expediency. Do you believe anything other than self-interest drives our foreign policy? There are many instances of our nation ignoring far worse situations than those currently happening in Iraq. If our nation has morals they appear to be rather fair-weather.
Again, this is not to say I am an isolationist or wish to simply watch from the sidelines. I am quite aware of what Britain’s military forces are capable of and have all the respect in the world for them. This appears to be yet another instance where cooler heads should prevail however, local forces engage whilst we seek to influence those arming and financing IS and look to a long term settlement rather than attempting to stifle an idea. The Allied nations forced Germany to surrender and yet to this day, there are still Nazis. Bombing IS will not stop radical Islam either.
My *personal* distaste of going to war and causing unnecessary death is a moral stance, but when necessary I’ll more than happily offer my services if required. When there are those able to enforce and maintain peace locally, with an overall better chance of a long term outcome? I’ll do my best to encourage and support them rather than make matters worse, as we have so often done in the past with badly thought out meddling.
Leon Wolfeson
As ever, you’re ignoring the fact that in 2012, IS didn’t have significant forces. The picture would have been every different, and the moderates could have been far stronger (and neither were the Saudi/Qatari Islamists there at the time, and they would never have been sent if we’d intervened!)
“A nation state is incapable of morals”
I don’t buy your argument at all, Western society has a set of morals, and those morals are expressed via the laws and governments of our nations. As far as I am concerned, you’re arguing for amorality, and indeed your view there *justifies* past selfish actions on the part of Western nations!
Moreover, you are not opposing war. You are arguing for us not getting involved in a war, which will inevitable extend it, with predictable consequences, without air support for the people you call “allies”, but are not supporting. Trying to “influence” people who don’t care, and quite possibly end up with this as an outright cold-war conflict, on the other hand (since Russia might well decide to really spite the West, if it drags on long enough…he’s already supplying Assad, after all!)…
Paul Arscott
The photo was not visible when I made the comment – crossed wires there.
You understand that, right now, both the UK and USA are going hat in hand to the Iranians (and the Saudis, Jordanians etc) to beg for their help in the region?
A caliphate really is about the only successful long term solution for Islam as a whole. I see no reason to assume that it would not be moderate. The lack of a top-down hierarchical authority has been the cause of many problems when the West has sought to deal with Islam
It’s great that you have an Iranian housemate. I too have spoken to many Iranians. The website which I frequent has several who regularly comment. One of them was arrested a number of years ago and is currently serving a 19.5 year sentence. I am under no illusion as to the current status of the nation.
The good outcome is indeed that the youth of Iran cause an internal change, hence my comment about demographics. We seem to agree 🙂
You must really like Burke since you’ve mentioned him three or four times. He had many other interesting and pithy sayings but it’s not really like trotting any of them out is the final word on the matter. I often find people that use quotes to end a statement (or in your case, merely hint at it, leaving it as an exercise to the reader to guess which specific one you refer to) do so in an effort to stifle further disagreement.
In some ways it is similar to the “appeal to authority” fallacy. “Look what this wise man once said, there can be no further discussion on the matter”. It’s a really great saying and I agree with it, just not to the same degree you obviously do.
You misrepresent my stance, hopefully with honest misunderstanding and not with an eye to dismiss my point of view.
Leon Wolfeson
Ah, fair enough on the picture.
And Burke simply had it right on this, as far as I am concerned. Moreover, I absolutely believe that communities, regions and countries express morality through their laws, customs and actions. The conflict between “secular”-based (by which I mean both Roman Law and Common Law, both of which are based on small-c christian morality, but anyway…) and more overtly religious-based morality and law such as Sharia underlies much of the issue in the Middle East for starters, for instance!
(And why, for instance, few people in practice have an issue with Jewish Beis Din, since the decisions are usually little different from conventional secular arbitration…)
Companies? Companies, under modern law are amoral. Now that’s an issue.