Syria and living with the legacy of the Iraq conflict

In 2013, Bashar al-Assad ordered chemical attacks on Syrian rebels in Ghouta, Damascus, killing hundreds of men, women and children, in one of most horrifying acts perpetrated against civilians in the 21st century.

The initially non-violent, pro-democratic uprising in Syria began in 2011 and was precipitated by the worst drought in Syrian history. Assad came down hard on his opponents, having seen a number of his fellow leaders deposed during the Arab Spring. By 2012, Syria had descended into full blown civil war.

The images of the aftermath of the sarin gas attacks were disturbing and condemnations resounded from all corners of the globe. Naturally, we in the UK felt outrage, none more so than the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who brought a motion to parliament, proposing UK intervention. Following
an impassioned debate however, he was defeated, striking a huge personal and political blow to Cameron.

The UK is no stranger to challenging dictators, the degree of success in doing so however, is debatable and largely depends upon how you measure success. The 2003 invasion of Iraq for instance, initially enjoyed the broad support of the British public, but following the chaos in Iraq after our withdrawal, the revelation that the United Nations found no evidence of any stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, combined with the loss of 179 British soldiers, countless allied and Iraqi lives, as well as the damning findings of the Chilcot Inquiry, the legacy of the Iraq invasion is looked back upon as a dark chapter in our political history. Two decades later, it is still a contentious issue and has undoubtedly influenced foreign policy and made us far more cautious when it comes to considering British military intervention and in my view, largely accounts for parliament voting against deploying UK forces to Syria.

The Middle East has an intricate power system and I think as citizens of an island nation, we sometimes fail to comprehend the complex and symbiotic nature of middle eastern nations. The mixture of issues are not terribly easy to understand, let alone attempt to resolve. Myriad countries have been drawn into the Syria conflict, from Israel; which has launched attacks on Assad’s forces, Turkey; which has supported and provided weapons to Syrian rebels, Russia; which with a little help from Iran, is pushing for Syria and Turkey to restore relations, all while the Arab League is trying to rehabilitate Assad back into the fold. A game of Ker-plunk springs to mind; as every action in the Middle East has a wide-spread knock on for the region, which is precisely why force alone will never work and why the UK, with our unique history and experience, has so much to offer in terms of diplomacy.

During a recent trip to Jordan, I saw first-hand just how powerful British diplomacy can be, as well as the plethora of other forms of soft-power we have at our disposal. From health schemes, to language programmes, even the ties between our royal families, all contribute to stability and cooperation.

Despite Jordan’s own woes, they have borne the brunt of the Syrian refugee crisis, but they have done so, at least in part, with the help of British foreign aid.

In the current economic climate, it’s all too easy to look at slashing our foreign aid budget and is perhaps an easy win when it comes to the majority of the electorate. It’s not difficult to understand why the average British man or woman can’t connect with a far-flung country and appreciate the full advantage to regional stability in another continent and I think that when we rolled the Department for International Development into Foreign Office, we lost a critical means to domestically make the case for foreign spending.

Not maintaining 0.7 per cent of GDP for foreign aid was another mistake in my view, especially in light of Brexit and the ensuing war in Ukraine. Yes, economically and politically, the only thing we can predict is unpredictability, but surely the benefit of a proportional amount that rises and falls in line with economic performance, means we can maintain our overseas objectives and obligations.

We can’t approach Syria, or indeed the Middle East in the way we would with a western aggressor. In the west, diplomacy generally means engaging with a government, in the Middle East, there are a range of authorities to contend with. From politicians, to faith leaders and different branches of that faith, tribal leaders, rebel leaders and allies who share a physical border. All need careful consideration.

Although there’s clearly no quick or easy fix in Syria, it was hard for me as a mother to set aside my emotions after seeing the images of child victims of the 2013 gas attacks. At the time, I wanted decisive action to ensure Assad could never again do such a thing. I felt attacks on civilians crossed a line and diplomacy alone wasn’t going to cut it. It therefore upsets me to think that the Iraq war, a war that I fought in, perhaps caused parliament to lose its nerve when it came to another middle-eastern conflict.

Of course the process of committing to military action is a decision that should not be taken lightly. It requires the utmost of consideration; cautious planning, no small amount of funding, support from allies, as well as those in the region, a willingness to commit to long-term involvement, plus consensus from the United Nations and other international forums. Whilst we must not be afraid to deploy force in face of brutality and defend the vulnerable, it must be a last resort and we must remember the mistakes of the past; that an exit strategy is as important as an invasion and we must be willing to contribute to long-term peace, lest another Kabul 2021.

We must be as generous as we can with foreign aid: overseas stability directly promotes domestic stability. Through initiatives such as education and health programmes, we are able to share our values and bring matters such as gender equality and LGBT+ rights to the fore. If citizens are prosperous, it prevents them turning to terrorist organisations or the illegal drugs trade in desperation and it stems the flow of immigrants seeking safety in other countries. Steady economies promote mutually beneficial trade agreements and strong relations afford us the ability to negotiate them.

I would hate for us to lose our identity as a nation of moral strength because of historical mistakes. We should never be afraid to challenge aggressors and defend the vulnerable, but this should never be at the cost of diplomacy. No matter how hard it is to stomach trying to work with tyrants, we must use all the weapons in our arsenal; diplomacy, allied influence, food programmes and education, all of which can run alongside military action. Condemnations are not enough and sticking plaster solutions such as sanctions, rarely produce the desired effect, because they usually impact the poorest in society. We must be consistent in our influence, generous with our foreign aid and take the lead in promoting a fair and democratic society.

We voted against military action in Syria in 2013, I accept that, but there is still plenty the UK can and should be doing.