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”
Paul Arscott
No worries 😉
I actually agree with you on Burke! I just don’t think that he means that we have to go to war. Not every violent action must be met with violence, and certainly not by ourselves.
We agree entirely on the amorality of corporations so it seems. That’s something that please me regardless of our other disagreements.
Paul Arscott
The idea that IS could not have become as influential as they are had Assad’s forces been targeted is an assumption on your part. We have no way of knowing fur sure what could or would have happened. Putin’s support for Assad’s regime would have prevented the West from doing much beyond limited strikes at any rate.
I’m not selling an argument. The *stated* moral stance of western nations is often used to justify the actions we take (often post hoc…) but don’t be fooled into thinking that we walk the walk. I do not argue *for* amorality but against it. A nation state, like a corporation, is incapable of possessing or espousing a moral stance and this has caused us many problems in the past that we are still working to rectify today.
I seek not to justify the actions of the west, merely to explain why we have made the decisions we have made in the past. Without actual moral leadership we are doomed to repeat this again and again.
If you believe the surrounding countries don’t care then I don’t know what to tell you. I am pretty certain that sectarian violence and hundreds of thousands of refugees are going to be rather high up the list of concerns. Your other comments there are guesswork and supposition. You have no idea how long the conflict will last, and nor do I. With that in mind I think it best that we look beyond immediate military action to a long term solution.
My phone battery is literally about to die so I’ll have to catch up on this later. Thank you for the erudite discussion!
Paul Arscott
Ignore me – that’s me putting “pen” to “paper” without engaging all my brain cells 🙂
Leon Wolfeson
I would point you to the statement from some of the (Muslim Brotherhood-associated) heads of the Mansouri family disowning Major Mariam Al Mansouri. That’s the caliphate right there – it’s very much the enemy, as much as Assad and IS.
And the amorality of corporations isn’t really hard to understand, they’re legally obliged to seek profit before all else. Changing that to place a social duty there…
swat
If Caroline switched to Labour then she wouldn’t be feeling all that lonely.
Air strikes on Iraqi ISIS isn’t going to make all that much of a difference.