Members of Parliament were recalled to the Commons this week to vote on
whether UK armed forces should join United States-led air strikes against
Islamic State (IS) in Iraq.
Carmarthenshire Member of Parliament Jonathan Edwards voted
against intervention.
When Tony Blair led the UK to war in Iraq back in 2003, Plaid Cymru
warned that regime change would create a power vacuum. Former
Carmarthenshire Member of Parliament, Adam Price, led attempts to impeach Mr
Blair, and was famously ejected from the House of Commons for branding the then
Prime Minister a liar.
Carmarthenshire played a significant role in the anti-war movement back
in 2003 when hundreds of country residents travelled by coach convey to join
the one million people marching against the Iraq invasion.
The UK Government’s intention is to support the Iraqi government with
air strikes. The motion passed in Parliament does not support
intervention in Syria.
Jonathan
Edwards said he had no confidence in UK and US foreign policy, and
that he believed regional government efforts - supported by the United Nations
and international community - would achieve long lasting stability in the
region, as opposed to western intervention with inevitable civilian deaths
which would progress the cause of Islamic State.
Speaking after the vote in the House of Commons, Jonathan Edwards MP
said:
“Since the people of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr put their faith in me
to represent them in Parliament, I have never underestimated the responsibility
it brings – not least when it comes to deciding whether or not our armed forces
are involved in military action.
“The horrific scenes we have seen on our televisions in recent weeks
leaves me in no doubt that Islamic State is a force of pure evil. The
barbarity of beheadings, atrocities and cruel oppression, inflicted not just on
western civilians, but also on the hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of Iraq
and Syria who have been unfortunate enough to fall under the rule of I.S. is
testimony enough.
“Military intervention through airstrikes therefore appears on the face
of it to be an obvious choice of action. But British invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan and subsequent entanglements should have taught us that the
obvious choice is not always the one to take.
“We know that I.S. does not recognise borders. Military action in
Iraq which the UK Government proposes ignores the fact that the Islamic State
controls large swathes of territory in Syria, and splinter groups are active
across the Middle East and North Africa with a French tourist recently executed
in Algeria.
“I not convinced the UK government has a robust strategy for
intervention or exit. I could not, in all consciousness, vote to send our
armed forces into a situation in which they are at the mercy of a foreign
policy decision in which I have no confidence.
“The inevitable death of innocent people from UK air strikes will only
serve to aid Islamic State in its long term propaganda efforts to recruit more
to its cause. There needs to be a clear endorsement of approved action
from the United Nations for defeating terrorism in the region.”
Setting out his position on what action could be taken instead of
military air strikes, Jonathan Edwards MP said:
“The Iraqi government – supported by western governments - has alienated
its Sunni population who have, in turn, welcomed the ‘victories’ of Islamic
State. Iraq is in desperate need of a non-sectarian government that
encompasses all faiths and beliefs in its society. The Western powers
following the 2003 Iraqi invasion have been guilty of supporting a sectarian
Shia led government which has alienated other religious and ethnic groups.
“Bombs will kill terrorists, but they will not stop terrorism. Air
strikes will only serve to further polarise the people and lead to a situation
whereby Iraqi and Syrian communities are left to face the successor of Islamic
State. We need to work with the Sunni tribes in particular to uprise
against the Islamic State. Civilian casualties amongst the Sunni
community as a result of air strikes will only strengthen the political grip of
the IS over the territories it holds in Iraq and Syria.
"The UK's response to this crisis must focus on humanitarian and
diplomatic efforts. A lasting solution can only be achieved by a
region-led approach backed by United Nations-led international support.
We should concentrate on delivering aid, bringing moderate regional powers
together, and offering to take refugees as the number fleeing their homes will
inevitably rise at a rapid rate.
“If the United Nations was indeed to endorse a strategy for intervention
and exit I would then, of course, consider my opposition very carefully.
As things stand an open ended commitment to UK air strikes lasting years is not
something I can support.”
7 comments:
You fail to mention that the democratically elected and broad base gvernment of Iraq have requested assistance to repel and defeat IS.
Pacifiscim is a luxury that the likes of PC can indulge in because they will never have power. It falls to proper governments to make difficult decisions and in this case I think Cameron has got it about right.
The a propose action is proportionate and legal - Blair lied but that is no reason for doing what is right now.
Sometimes we have to exercise force and accept that it is right and proper.
Come off it Anon 18:58. Jonathan's approach is pragmatic - not pacifistic. The UK is just trying to parade as a world power (although having an aircraft carrier with no planes is a bit fur coat and no knickers!) This latest escapade will cost UK taxpayers £3 billion, at a time of savage cutbacks in the NHS, social care etc. It's jingoism gone mad. Very rich and heavily-armed Arab countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia should be left to sort out the IS. Western interference will just lead to more hatred and resentment, which breeds further extremism. God! Will we ever learn? But then, of course, if you don't have wars the arms companies won't make profits will they?
Have to agree with anonymous 18.58.
Anon 1624.
I think the UK is doing anything but parade as a world power. It seems to me that wha the Uk is doing is legal and proportionate.
We are aa tangly operating on a par with the Netherlands which is reasonable.
As regards the comment about the aircraft carrier, there is a lag in ensuring the ships have planes but they will do and the point you make is a bit silly.
The fact is IS is a murderous regime and they need to be defeated and destroyed. They are operating medieval rules and this country must ensure that we join the coalition to stop them.
I'm struck by the assertion that "We need to work with the Sunni tribes in particular to uprise against the Islamic State." How, exactly? Sending weapons? Offering training? Providing boots on the ground?
If one is suggesting alternatives to concrete proposals, waffle isn't enough. Invoking the UN as if it were a supranational body rather than something less than the sum of its constituent parts is a sign of waffle. (I'm not suggesting that the UN is worthless - just that it is inherently weak as long as Security Council members pursue their national interests.)
Anyone who watched the debate on Friday would have been struck by what the BBC called the shallow nature of the support given to this intervention. Many MPs who voted in favour did so reluctantly, and for the good reason that the track record does not inspire confidence.
Working with the Sunni tribes means arming them and demonstrating that the world - through the UN - acknowledges that Iraq is their country too.
Two aircraft carrier years behind schedule, twice over budget at £6.3 billion, no aircraft for another five years - and Anon 1624 calls ME silly?
Post a Comment