Tag Archives: security council

Parliament recalled to debate air strikes on IS


How do we all feel about David Cameron’s latest bid to have a Middle Eastern crusade?

He has always wanted one, and no doubt he wants to bury the spectre of last year’s aborted attempt to attack Syria – when Labour leader Ed Miliband did the impossible and, from opposition, stopped the government from having its way.

But exorcising that demon would require Miliband to oppose an attack on IS and this seems unlikely because the cause appears to be just.

Not only has Iraq appealed to the UK for help to contain the threat of Islamic State, but we have proof – from IS itself – that it is killing British citizens.

The Guardian has reported a cautious response from Miliband in line with the wishes of the Labour Party conference, which called for a UN security council resolution before the UK commits to any conflict. But the BBC is reporting that Miliband has confirmed his support for an alliance of nations – including Arab states – against IS, saying that the UK should not “opt out”.

Back in the Victorian era, when a British citizen was threatened in Greece, Lord Palmerston famously sent a gunboat and blockaded Athens. Cameron – who has been working hard to resurrect the 19th century – would be showing weakness if he did not seek similar retribution.

And the last thing he needs to show IS is weakness.

It would be seen as an invitation to launch further attacks against the UK – possibly even on our own soil.

Parliament will be recalled to discuss the matter at 10.30am tomorrow, with a vote at around 5.30pm. The result, it seems, is a foregone conclusion.

At the top of this article, readers are asked how they feel about David Cameron’s latest bid to have a crusade in the Middle East. Some readers might find that a churlish way of describing the matter, as the cause does seem just.

But Cameron’s motives are always questionable. He wants a war that will win an election for him, just as the Falklands War won a second term for Margaret Thatcher.

His problem is, he’s not as intelligent as Mrs T. She, it has been claimed, led Argentina to believe that the UK was weaker than was actually the case, in order to provoke that country into a fight it could not win. This narrative claims that she planned the whole thing.

Cameron has planned nothing. He is in the hands of circumstance and could just as easily become the victim as the victor.

And the British public is tired of endless foreign adventures that cost a fortune and bring no benefit back here.

Those are the facts of the matter – as far as it is possible to interpret them at this time.

What do you think?

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
reporting on events as they happen!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Syria: The right decision for the wrong reason?

A statesman emerges: Ed Miliband's decisions on Syria have revealed courage and determination to do what is right. They show he has the potential to be a great British statesman.

A statesman emerges: Ed Miliband’s decisions on Syria have revealed courage and determination to do what is right. They show he has the potential to be a great British statesman.

It looked as though we were all heading for another pointless adventure in the Middle East, but a day in politics really is a long time, isn’t it?

On Tuesday evening, there seemed to be consensus. The leaders of the main UK political parties had met to discuss the situation in Syria – in particular the evidence that an attack involving chemical weapons had taken place – and had parted in broad agreement that military action was warranted in order to discourage the use of such devices.

But then Labour’s Ed Miliband changed his mind. It seems likely he held a meeting with members of his own party who helped him devise an alternative plan.

In his blog on Tuesday, Michael Meacher laid down several reasons for delaying any new military adventure:

  • The UN weapons inspectors currently working in Syria have not had enough time to find conclusive proof of chemical weapon use. Attacking on the basis of the evidence we currently hold would be reminiscent of the attack on Iraq, where we were assured Saddam Hussein held weapons of mass destruction. We later discovered – to our shame – that he did not;
  • Where 100,000 citizens have already been killed by conventional means, it seems extremely odd to use the deaths of 1,000 by other means as an excuse to wade into the fray; and
  • What about international law? How would Russia and China react if the UN Security Council, on which they both sit, rejected military action but the UK – along with the USA and others – went ahead with it anyway? And wouldn’t this light a powder keg in the Middle East, kicking off a larger, regional conflict – the outcome of which cannot be predicted?

Mr Miliband concluded that it would be far better to wait for stronger evidence and he notified David Cameron that he would be tabling an amendment on Syria when Parliament is recalled today (Thursday). This would insist that a vote should be taken only after the weapons inspectors have delivered their report. He said Parliament should only agree criteria for action – not write a blank cheque (for those who want war).

This writer was delighted – the decision was almost exactly what I had suggested when I responded to a poll on the LabourList blog site, although I had added in my comment that the only decision open to Parliament was to offer humanitarian aid to non-combatants affected by the fighting between the different Syrian factions.

The decision indicated not only that Labour had learned its lesson from the Blair-era decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but that Mr Miliband had also paid attention to the will of the British people; those opposing another war outnumber those supporting it by around two to one.

Mr Cameron was now in a very difficult position as, without Labour’s support and with only limited backing from his own party, it was entirely possible that he would be defeated if he suggested military action in the Commons today.

Defeat in a major vote is, of course, something that no government voluntarily provokes. He had no choice but to change his mind, and now Parliament is being recalled to approve humanitarian aid and agree to the course of action put forward by Mr Miliband.

So now all my wishes appear likely to be granted.

It is the correct decision. But it was not the decision Cameron wanted. He wanted war.

It is also a decision that has been clearly dictated by the actions of the Opposition leader. Let’s make no bones about it, Ed Miliband called this tune and David Cameron danced to it.

Let’s look at what Michael Meacher had to say about this. It is illuminating because it comes from a backbencher who has been outspoken in criticism of Mr Miliband in the past. He wrote in his blog: “It singles out Ed Miliband as a man of inner strength and integrity who can take the gritty decisions when they are most needed, and this is undoubtedly one of those times… The hardest thing for a Leader of the Opposition to do, bereft of any executive authority, is to challenge the prevailing structure of power and change it or even overturn it. No other Opposition Leader has succeeded in this as well as Ed Miliband.

“We have already seen him take on Murdoch over BSkyB and stop the biggest concentration of media power in UK history in its tracks, and then almost single-handedly block the press counter-attack against Leveson which would have left newspapers as unaccountable as ever.”

So it seems we will see the right decision taken, albeit for the wrong reasons – thanks to the courage, leadership and statesmanship of Mr Miliband.

There’s just one further question: If the big decision is being taken after the weapons inspectors report back, and they are unlikely to do so until Monday (we’re told)… That’s after MPs were scheduled to return to Parliament. The emergency recall is therefore an unnecessary extravagance.

I wonder how much MPs will be allowed to claim for it on expenses?

(Note: This has been written while events continue to develop. All information was accurate at the time of writing.)