Hansard

I congratulate John Wilson on lodging the motion and I support the thrust of it. However, each potential war situation is unique and must be looked at on its own merits. My view is that war is always a last resort. I have opposed UK military intervention in nearly every instance when it has happened in my adult life. Clearly, there are exceptions, unless someone is an absolute pacifist. The second world war is the classic exception that everyone but extreme pacifists would accept as having been necessary.

We should accept that every situation is different. Equally, we must accept that Daesh’s behaviour is comparable to that of the Nazis—theirs is cruel, murderous and, in many cases, exterminating behaviour. People throughout the world are understandably appalled by that. We should remember that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are appalled, too. In fact, Muslims form the largest number of Daesh’s victims. Those are important messages to get out.

I understand people’s emotional reaction to Daesh and wanting to bomb its supporters. There is also the issue of self-defence, which is a traditional ethical justification for war. That applies in this situation, because of Daesh’s threat to this country, whereas it did not apply to, for example, the Iraq war.

We need to look specifically at the Syrian situation, which is different from that in Iraq. For me, it was a much more difficult decision than that involving Iraq, so I respect the members of my party who took a different view. However, I have opposed and continue to oppose the bombing in Syria. There are several reasons for that.

The first reason is the one to which John Wilson referred—that innocent people will be killed. I was struck by a tweet that Christina McKelvie posted the other day that said that life expectancy in Syria was 75.9 years in 2010 and is 55.7 years in 2015. Too many people are being killed in Syria. However, we have to realise that many of those people are being killed by Daesh rather than by the bombs of Britain and many other countries.

Another factor is that the British contribution to bombing is not changing the situation much. Crucially, the British and other bombs will not in themselves change the situation on the ground. That is why a lot of the debate over the past month or so has been about precisely that. The reality is that there is no credible ground force to take back land that is held by Daesh, so bombing is strategically not effective. This morning, I tweeted an article whose title is:

“Don’t rely on Syria’s ‘moderate’ fighting force. It doesn’t exist”.

We have to look at the strategic realities.

Another consideration is the consequences for us. We are already a target, but it is clear that the air strikes will make us more of a target. That cannot be the overriding argument against bombing, but we have to take it into account.

We have to look at the alternatives, because there is no option of doing nothing. Daesh has to be taken on and defeated for the sake of the people who live in the middle east most of all, but also for our own sakes and for our self-defence. It is clear that there is a range of measures, such as cutting off funding, oil revenues or arms supplies and getting involved as far as possible in the negotiation process. Ultimately, there has to be a negotiated settlement.

Part of the problem is the complexity of the situation in Syria. Many of the forces that are fighting Daesh are also fighting each other. The situation is incredibly complex, but bombing Syria cannot be the answer.

Finally, we have to say something about the refugees. We have to do everything that we can to support and welcome them, and we must counter the views of those who connect that issue with the issue of terrorism. Let us welcome the refugees and do everything positive that we can to resolve the situation in Syria.