Hansard

First, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I thank the members who signed the motion to allow us to have the debate, which clearly demonstrates the Parliament’s desire to debate issues that are of serious consequence to Scotland and the world.

United Nations resolution 2249 has been cited as the basis for launching air strikes in Syria. Although it is true that the resolution calls on member states to use “all necessary measures” in the fight against Daesh, it says that such methods should be used

“in compliance with international law, in particular”

the UN charter as well as

“international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”.

It is difficult to see how bombing densely populated areas that are packed with civilians achieves that. In fact, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence has stated that civilian casualties are “inevitable”. This week, Common Space reported:

“In terms of the identity of those killed in bombing raids, the MoD conceded that this was ‘not information we hold readily’”.

That means that the Ministry of Defence has absolutely no idea whom our bombs are hitting.

The UN resolution states:

“the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syria conflict”.

That part of the resolution should have been embraced fully and further efforts to progress the Vienna peace talks should have been made. Although those talks lacked a crucial dimension—after all, no Syrians were involved—they were clearly a positive first step in bringing together regional and global powers in an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to some of the issues facing Syria. I hope that we will continue to see further progress through that process and that it will involve groups in Syria. It is impossible to see a final solution to the situation without their involvement.

The UN resolution calls on member states

“to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism”.

It is simply implausible that an international coalition that includes the UK and the United States of America and which has the UN’s backing has exhausted all available avenues. Maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia—a state that operates in a strikingly similar manner to Daesh in its approach to criminal justice—appears to be more valuable than cracking down on its financing of terrorist organisations. We should also mention Saudi Arabia’s continued air strikes in Yemen, which were highlighted at last week’s Amnesty International event in the Parliament.

The idea that further bombing in the middle east can bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation in Syria and elsewhere is utter nonsense. If bombing really worked as has been suggested, Iraq and Syria would be among the most peaceful countries in the world. They have been bombed repeatedly—cities have been destroyed and countless civilians have died—but still we are told that the threat from terrorism is bigger today than it has ever been.

Syria has been on the receiving end of air strikes from a long list of countries—we are talking about more than 15 months of bombing, with an estimated 30,000 bombs being dropped. It is delusional to think that dropping more bombs on Syria will lead to a peaceful resolution to the current situation.