The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-15046, in the name of John Wilson, on Syrian air strikes. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that bombing densely populated areas in Syria, such as the city of Raqqa, will be ineffective in combatting the threat posed by Daesh and will inevitably lead to substantial numbers of civilian casualties; believes that an increase in Western military action in the Middle East will increase the likelihood of radicalisation both at home and abroad; considers that the UK can best offer support to the region through the use of diplomatic services and humanitarian aid, particularly in support of people fleeing the conflict; recognises that bombing will not bring about a peaceful resolution to the horrific situation in Syria; notes the strong feelings expressed across Scotland including in the Central Scotland region on this subject; praises the Don’t Bomb Syria protests held in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere across the country in the week beginning 30 November 2015; welcomes that the vast majority of Scottish MPs voted against the UK Government’s motion, and condemns the decision taken by the UK Parliament to launch air strikes in Syria.
12:34
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.
Will Mr Wilson confirm that those of us who disagree with bombing are not saying that we should do nothing?
I thank Elaine Smith for that intervention, and I will address that issue later.
The haste with which British planes began bombing Syria—mere hours after the House of Commons vote was carried—demonstrates a desire to be seen to be among the big boys and to play to delusions of grandeur instead of offering a credible solution to the problems in Syria or elsewhere.
The crisis in Syria has resulted in a large number of people having no choice but to leave their homes. Countless millions have been displaced in the country, and millions have fled to neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.
I thank the member for taking my intervention and I apologise for not being able to stay because I am hosting an event for Syrian refugees. Will he join me in welcoming the many Syrian refugees who are now in Scotland?
That is something that I will cover later, too.
At home, local authorities across Scotland, including those in Central Scotland, have been preparing to welcome Syrian refugees. Among the first of those refugees was a group of 12 families who are settling into their new lives in the Monklands area of North Lanarkshire.
It is unfortunate that, in response to the situation, a small minority in our society have displayed intolerant views towards those refugees and towards existing Muslim communities in Scotland. I am sure that everyone in the Parliament, regardless of their views on air strikes, will join me in condemning the rise in Islamophobic attacks and in the use of bigoted, sectarian and racist language. I am certain that the vast majority of people in Scotland will extend a warm welcome to the people who are arriving from such hellish conditions.
Humanitarian aid is our greatest weapon in the fight against Daesh and in our efforts to stop further radicalisation. Rather than bombs, we must put humanitarianism at the forefront of our efforts to support the Syrian people. Bombs will create more refugees and more civilian casualties and will ultimately result in more recruits becoming radicalised at home and in the territories that Daesh controls.
I must highlight the incredible demonstrations that have been taking place across Scotland. In Glasgow and Edinburgh, outside the Parliament and across Scotland and the UK, people have been saying “Don’t bomb Syria.” From conversations that I have had, from emails that I have received and from the demonstrations that we have seen, it is clear to me that people across the country do not support the action. I was pleased that the overwhelming majority of Scottish members of the UK Parliament voted against the UK Government’s motion. I am also pleased that Green, independent, Scottish National Party and Labour members across the chamber supported my motion and allowed this debate to take place.
The decision to embark on military action should always be a last resort, but that is not what has happened here. We have failed to learn the glaring lessons from previous military action in the region. For the past two years, the UK Government has been determined to take us into action in Syria. First it wanted to bomb Assad; now it targets Daesh. In the rush to war, there is no proper strategy to end the game. I fear that the action will only strengthen the grip of terrorists on the region and increase the suffering of ordinary Syrians, and I utterly condemn it.
I look forward to the minister’s response and will listen carefully to what action the Scottish Government will take to militate against the on-going crisis in Syria. During the Iraq war, those who campaigned against the war adopted the slogan “Not in our name”. I put it on the record that the bombings in Syria by the UK Government are not in my name and, I hope, not in yours.
12:43
I thank John Wilson for bringing this timely debate to our chamber. As we all break for Christmas and think about having time with our families and children, maybe we should reflect on some of the children who face hardship in the world.
UNICEF says that Syria is now one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a child. It is now in the midst of winter. Inside and outside Syria, 7.5 million children need humanitarian aid, 2.6 million are no longer in school and 2 million are living in refugee camps around Syria. Some children who are under five know nothing other than a war zone, nothing other than fleeing across land and sea from war zones and nothing other than life in a refugee camp. For some, long journeys across land and sea take their childhood, and for many children, such journeys take their lives.
I am concerned about the language that is being used. We are conflating the security of our nations with the Syrian refugee crisis. That is a dangerous and disturbing move.
The bombs that are used in the air strikes that John Wilson spoke about are called Brimstones. To me, brimstone is sulphur—a chemical element that can be put in fires. One dictionary defines it as “hell’s fire”. Each Brimstone bomb costs £100,000. Calling them smart bombs does not make them sexy or palatable at all.
The young people of whom I have spoken either flee hell’s fire or die in hell’s fire. We see that happen every day after the bombers go out to do their job. What do we hear from the supporters of war? They talk about collateral damage. When they say the words “collateral damage”, I say, “Men, women, children; Homs, Kobanî, Yazidis.” Such dehumanisation of people will be the catalyst for generations of radicalised young people who have no other outlet to address that fear and intimidation.
The case for diplomatic intervention has not been progressed. The UK Government has not advanced that at all, but it should do so—in all areas. Bombing will never bring a resolution to the problem. Whether we are talking about dodgy dossiers or the Prime Minister’s claims about 70,000 ground troops, such claims turn to dust under any scrutiny whatsoever. As many have said, air strikes do not help the situation and certainly do not hinder Daesh.
Magnus Wennman, who is a photographer, has spent time with children who were fleeing war zones. I will read an extract from his exhibition:
“Shehd used to be playful, she especially loved to draw. But her mother soon noticed a common theme in her sketches: weapons.
‘She saw them all the time’ ... Shehd and her family now live on the Hungarian border. They pick food from the nearby trees. The family said if they’d known how difficult their journey would have been—they would have risked their lives to stay in Syria, despite Islamic State.”
Not in my name, not in our Parliament’s name and certainly not in my country’s name.
12:47
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.
12:52
I congratulate John Wilson on securing time in Parliament for this important debate. I entirely agree with his remarks about Islamophobia and the need to put a stop to it.
I take part in this debate with a very heavy heart, as it is yet another sign of the current instability of our world, which is filled with conflict and atrocities. Every wasted life is a tragedy—there is no doubt about that. In all conflicts that we take part in, we should continue to do all that we can to minimise civilian casualties. I have the highest confidence that our servicemen and women are doing all that they can to ensure that outcome.
The recent vote in the House of Commons on the UK’s stepping up its involvement in Syria was important for a number of reasons. First, we have sent a clear and unequivocal message of support to our brothers and sisters in France that shows that Britain is a partner that can be relied on, regardless of circumstance. We must do all that we can to ensure that the nightmare of Paris is not repeated in Paris or anywhere else.
Secondly, Islamic State, or Daesh, has proven yet again that its striking capabilities are good. It is not a petty gang of thugs in a faraway land; it is an organisation that is well versed in spreading terror and death wherever it goes. If we fail to stop it, we will not only fail to keep the people of Britain safe; we will fail the people of the region who must suffer the heavy hand of Daesh. Homosexuals are thrown off rooftops, invaluable cultural treasures are destroyed, and people are burned alive and beheaded for their beliefs. Daesh does not want to negotiate, and finding a diplomatic solution with it is very probably not possible. That is very regrettable.
It is not common to hear a Conservative quoting directly a Labour shadow foreign secretary out of agreement, but I shall do my best to do justice to Hilary Benn’s excellent speech in support of our intervention. His analysis of our enemy was very poignant. He said:
“We are faced by fascists—not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this Chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 2 December 2015; Vol 603, c 486.]
He is right; Daesh despises all that we stand for. However, that in itself does not warrant air strikes. They seek—not today or tomorrow, but as soon as they can—to destroy all that we hold dear.
The UK has already been fighting Daesh in Iraq, and we have, alongside our many allies, managed to weaken its foothold in Iraq. Before last week’s vote, however, Daesh fighters could just cross the fictional border between Iraq and Syria to seek cover. That safe haven no longer exists for them.
Britain was asked by the world community to act. We have heeded the call for aid. Britain again stands shoulder to shoulder with its allies, fellow champions of freedom, against a common enemy. We now have to ensure that our air strikes are conducted in a manner that is as efficient as possible, using strategies developed to minimise civilian casualties.
Getting adequate intelligence from the ground, allowing for precision, pin-pointed strikes, is absolutely essential. With a comprehensive strategy, and with the strong backing of the UN, both of which we currently have, we stand a good chance of defeating those evil forces that seek to destroy us, embodied by Daesh.
12:56
I, too, congratulate John Wilson on bringing this pertinent motion and giving us all an opportunity to discuss it.
The motion talks about “bombing densely populated areas”. We know that after the second world war, the first location where that happened was in Chechnya, when Russia carpet-bombed Grozny. I think that history will show that they did so with the compliance of the west. It was part of a deal that links in with another phrase from the motion, about
“Western military action in the Middle East”.
We know that there is ample precedent for that, and I will talk about a couple of cases.
One is Iraq. We went there on a false premise and if we could set aside the obscene levels of death there—although I suggest that we do not—the question is, did we achieve our aims? Indeed, what were our aims?
Libya is another example—people will remember the “deal in the desert”. Again, if we could set aside the obscene levels of death, which I suggest that we do not, the question is whether we achieved our aims. What were those aims?
What we have done is delivered anarchy to both those countries. No one doubts for one minute—and I am no different—that there is an obligation on the United Kingdom to protect its citizens. That should be done by assessing the risks and putting in place mechanisms to deal with them.
None of the assessed risks that the UK faces, which are the same as those faced by every western liberal democracy and concern things such as continuity of energy supply, food, cyber-attack and terrorism, are going to be addressed by bombing, anywhere.
Language is very important. As with everything, we need to ask whose interests are being served by any particular action. I suggest that it is not always those of the nation state—very frequently it is those of the arms industry. How depressing that a senior UK politician talks about Britain having “got its mojo back”. Whatever a mojo is, if killing and mindlessly inflicting violence on another country is what gets it back then I say again, not in our name.
We know that munitions made 30 miles from here have contributed to death in the Middle East—the killing in the Yemen. The role that Saudi Arabia plays in that shows that it is a vile and obscene regime. Everything that is said about Daesh could be repeated in respect of it.
To go back to the language that is used, we are told that the west is very keen to see democracy. However, we know that when it comes to Palestine or Egypt, that is not necessarily the case. Who determines who are the goodies and who the baddies? I have the highest regard for our Kurdish sisters and brothers, who are from the largest dispossessed nation in the world, but a nation that the west was not interested in when Saddam Hussein gassed them. Now they are back onside, but there are all sorts of conflicts relating to NATO’s involvement and the role of Turkey, which is seizing its opportunity to attack our Kurdish brothers and sisters.
I wonder whether it is a good or a bad thing for a country to have oil. Would it help South Sudan, or Myanmar and the minority population that is being abused there, if they did or did not have oil? We need to be alert to all of the dangers that are associated with this conflict. As ever, I prefer tanks to Tornados. I am concerned that we fuel the conflict by our investment in the arms trade, and I include in that investment by the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme.
I have to say that I just get the impression that the United Kingdom likes war. I do not like war; I like the role that the Scottish Government will play in conflict resolution. I do not like the demonisation of people who oppose violence. I will oppose violence from every quarter. I want adherence to international law, I want respect for human rights, and I want one world and one humanity.
I do not want a piece of the action. The action that I want a piece of is showing compassion to our Syrian refugees. Fortunately, we will be showing compassion to everyone who is coming to the isle of Bute.
13:00
I thank John Wilson for bringing the issue of the decision by the UK Government to launch air strikes in Syria to the attention of the Scottish Parliament in this debate.
Syria was a country of 23 million people before the conflict began. I say “was” because Syria seems to be a country no more. It lies in ruins, its infrastructure in tatters and its schools, hospitals, towns and villages in rubble, with 4 million UN-registered refugees abroad and another million unregistered, 7 million displaced internally and more than 250,000 of its citizens dead. Basically, half of Syria’s population is displaced in one form or another. We are witnessing the death of a nation in front of our eyes, and its people are fleeing, having lost all hope for peace.
They flee their own Government, the rebels fighting that Government, Daesh/Islamic State, which is fighting everybody, or the combined air strikes that target all of them. The Russians target the rebels and Daesh. The west targets Daesh and the regime, and helps the rebels. The west asks the Russians to stop targeting the rebels, since it lets IS and the regime off the hook. Assad says that the Russian intervention is more effective—but he would, wouldn’t he? What an absolute disaster has been created. No wonder that once-proud country is literally bleeding to death.
All of that was known to us before the UK decided to pitch in with its contribution of more air strikes. Surely any reasonable person must be asking whether the UK military involvement, which started only minutes after the vote for action, is helping or is making things worse. The House of Commons did not authorise a plan for peace; it authorised a plan for war. Have we learned nothing from the past inglorious adventure in Iraq, where the country was told a pack of lies to make it easier for a Prime Minister to side with the American military campaign there? There was no plan for peace then and there is none now.
What disturbs me is the glib claim by the UK Secretary of State for Defence that there are no reports of civilian casualties. How reassuring. No wonder there are no reports; there are no reporters. Mercifully, though, what we have is a citizen journalist social media presence through Twitter feeds and on Facebook from a group called RBSS, which stands for Raqqa is being slaughtered silently. It is a social media platform of underground citizens who try to report what is happening in Raqqa. They report on IS crucifixions, beheadings and sexual abuse, and some of the group’s members have even been murdered by IS. They describe Raqqa as it was—a wonderful city with universities, cafes and bars, rich in energy resources and with a solid agricultural base, which became a focal point for the rebellion against Assad. It is now a stronghold for Daesh, attracting more and more fighters from abroad to live in the so-called caliphate. Now, it is described as a prison, where women are not permitted to leave and where citizens are basically human shields against air strikes.
Many local people have joined IS through fear, and youngsters have been forced into training camps to be indoctrinated. Of the air strikes, RBSS says that the bombing strategy is plainly stupid—the west bombing the outskirts, the Russians allegedly hitting a hospital and a university, while people are trapped inside the city. People are afraid that their city is simply being bombed into oblivion, just like Kobani. Even military commentators say that IS cannot be defeated there unless it happens on the ground. RBSS feels that the only way that Syria can be rebuilt is through civic society growing and spreading. Countering and destroying IS propaganda on social media is crucial in achieving that, and RBSS needs help to continue with that.
Are we closer to or further away from a solution by sending in Royal Air Force planes to rain more bombs down on Raqqa? I fear that we may be further away, and those brave citizens of Raqqa seem to think so too. While the west and Russia have different aims in Syria and IS holds the city of Raqqa and its citizens to ransom, there does not seem to be any prospect for peace. A bombing campaign on its own cannot succeed. Surely it has to be within our wit to devise an intelligent and co-ordinated campaign to nullify IS and its propaganda and to embrace the civic rebellion that has sprung up in the hope that somebody somewhere will listen and will act to protect and cherish the citizens of Raqqa and work for the restoration of the nation of Syria.
Once again, I congratulate John Wilson on bringing us the debate.
13:05
I, too, congratulate John Wilson on bringing the debate to the chamber. There have been some really good contributions from members. I had feared, watching some of the debate around the issue, that we might follow some of what has been said elsewhere, and I am pleased that that has not happened.
People who present the issue—whichever side they are on—as a debate between the good guys who do not want to bomb and the bad guys who do are doing their case no credit whatsoever. That kind of argument, without any nuance or recognition of the complexity of the situation, considerably weakens—and certainly does not bolster—the argument against bombing.
I am absolutely clear in my opposition to the bombing of Syria, not as a pacifist or an appeaser but because of my view of what is a very complex situation. Willie Coffey explained the complexity of the situation at the beginning of his speech very well, and my view is pretty straightforward.
In a situation in which a long, protracted, devastating civil war has tragically reduced a proud, sophisticated, cultured and developed country to one big pile of rubble, and in which Daesh—or ISIL or ISIS, or whatever title they operate under—is engaged in nihilistic barbarism and brutality, we must consider whether we assist and make the situation better or make it worse by sending in our planes to join the thunderstorm of bombs raining down on that land. Will air strikes deradicalise and de-escalate an already appalling situation, or will they escalate it further and further radicalise those who have nothing left to lose?
Will creating more Syrian orphans and widows hasten the end of the civil war? Will the demolition of more homes, factories and infrastructure, and what remains of civil society, help to prevent French citizens from killing French citizens in the concert halls of Paris? Will the inevitable collateral damage—in other words, the deaths of more innocent people—prevent otherwise respectable US citizens living in suburban America from stockpiling weapons and then going to a Christmas party and wiping out dozens of people? I just cannot see how that will be the case.
In reality, has the war on terror that was unleashed following the horrendous events on 9/11 brought an end to terrorism or stoked the flames of terrorism further? The war on terror, far from making the world a safer place, has made it a much more dangerous place. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria: I have to ask, what have we learned? Not very much, it would appear.
The desire to do something does not mean that we should do just anything. The reality is that, in an age of spectacularly advanced technology and modern communications, we cannot bomb our way to victory over terrorists such as Daesh, who operate in a cell structure. Where are they based, where do they live and who are they? Well, who knows?
As we have seen from past events, such as the Glasgow airport bombing, terrorists are in fact doctors, teachers, accountants and information technology consultants: people doing normal, everyday jobs. That type of threat will never be ended through military hardware. It must be dealt with by cutting off funding, propaganda and communications; through education; and by ending the civil war in Syria and the conflicts across the middle east that stoke resentment and feelings of helplessness.
I will try to finish on a more upbeat point. Today, two lorries will come to Livingston to pick up donations that my local Labour Party has collected for Syria. Hundreds of boxes will be sent to help the refugees in Germany, and I am very proud that we did that. The response from the public in West Lothian was huge.
I do not pretend to have any answers, but one thing I know is that bombing is not the solution.
13:09
I congratulate John Wilson on bringing this timely debate to the Parliament. I am only sorry that there are not more members who regard the subject as one of the most important that we can debate.
I agree with almost everything that I have heard from other members, who made powerful speeches. I cannot add to what they said, but I want to talk about the seriousness of war and the lack of coverage in our media. We know what the bombs are capable of, because we can find out for ourselves, but the media are not showing, and never do show, the harshness of war. The reality was described well by members to the few people who were here to hear them, and what was said will be in the Official Report.
Scotland is a nation, although defence and military matters are still reserved to Westminster, and there is no doubt whatever that Scotland’s representatives, who owe their positions to the democratic process of the people of this country, voted against bombing in Syria. That should have been a headline that was repeated and repeated.
The bombing is not in my name, and, as Christina McKelvie said, not in our country’s name. We knew what would happen. It is no surprise that bombing will not fix anything; it did not fix anything in the past and it will not do so now.
What is needed is humanitarian aid, perhaps starting in this country. To spend £100,000 on a bomb is an obscenity when thousands of people in this country have no food and there is a genuine desire to help Syrian refugees.
Why are we allowing this to happen? I ask the minister, our Government and all members of the Parliament how we can get that message into a press that is supporting the arms race and is not reflecting the views of the 78 per cent of people in the country who oppose the bombing in Syria, according to a recent poll. How do we ensure that our nationhood and our people’s desire not to bomb Syria are expressed? How does Westminster react when a country has expressed clear objection and wants to take no part in the war?
I welcome John Wilson’s motion, but the debate is not over and we should be making our voices heard much more strongly. If we can bomb Syria, we will bomb again the next time. We will not learn and we will be constantly carried along by a Westminster military machine that does not reflect the will of the Scottish people.
13:13
I thank John Wilson for securing the debate and I thank all the members who contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate.
The crisis in Syria is one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times. The scale of the suffering is unimaginable. In the debate we have heard some of the figures for the number of people who have lost their lives or been displaced. It is important to remember that the situation in Syria is not a new one. The conflict and the regime’s bombardment of its own people have been going on for four and a half years in a brutal civil war.
It is inevitable that the recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Istanbul and elsewhere in the world make us ask what we can do to respond and how we can keep ourselves safe. On that point, I would say two things. First, I agree with Neil Findlay’s assessment that we cannot do something for the sake of it—I think that the phrase that he used was that doing something does not mean doing anything; I certainly agree with that.
The second point concerns Jamie McGrigor’s speech, which I thought was a thoughtful contribution, although I disagreed with many parts of it. He said that there was an obligation on the UK to respond to the calls of our allies, meaning, in this case, France. The Scottish Government’s relationship with France and our allies is strong, as we would want it to be, and we would always look to strengthen it further. However, the efforts to strengthen those relationships should not be based on simply acceding to demands or requests without any critical analysis. We should always be prepared to listen to the requests of our allies, but those relationships should be based on mutual respect. For example, the relationship between France and the UK is as strong as it has ever been, despite the fact that France did not accede to the calls of the UK and the USA to get involved in Iraq, for example. It is possible to have different foreign policies and make different decisions. It is not fair to characterise that as not standing up for our allies—I know that that is not what Jamie McGrigor was doing, but others have done that.
The Scottish Government is not opposed to military intervention simply as a matter of principle. As Elaine Smith said, those who opposed air strikes do not simply believe that nothing should be done. However, as other members have said, action can be undertaken only when there is a clear objective in mind and as part of a wider, coherent strategy to achieve peace.
The solution that was proposed by the UK Government to broaden air strikes to include targets in Syria does not address the root causes of either the war in Syria or the terrorism that has affected many other countries. Indeed, as many members have said, it risks making those situations worse. The Scottish Government and I feel that, despite the fact that he was asked time and again to explain what the strategy is, the Prime Minister failed to make a convincing case that air strikes in Syria will help to end the violence or undermine extremism.
For example, MPs asked time and again how UK efforts will help to defeat Daesh when the efforts of 11 other countries, including three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, have failed. Indeed, the fact that the Prime Minister asked Parliament for permission to bomb the Assad regime in 2013 only to return two years later for permission to bomb Daesh speaks volumes about the lack of coherent, long-term planning.
Furthermore, as others have done, we have pushed the UK Government to provide more detail on the 70,000 so-called moderate forces that would take over control of areas that were vacated by Daesh. Respected MPs from across the political spectrum and security experts have cast doubt on that figure and on answers that were given by the Prime Minister on the issue.
I want to touch on the refugee issue. Christina McKelvie spoke powerfully about how some children will not know anything other than life in a refugee camp. Everyone understands that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in Syria. We know that it requires a diplomatic effort to find an end to the conflict. In the meantime, we must provide any assistance that we can to refugees. I have been overwhelmed by the support that has been shown across Scotland, from the efforts of local authorities to the desire of individuals to help refugees in any way they can. I am proud of the Scottish Government for leading the calls—not just this year but for many years—for refugees from Syria to be welcomed here. It is unacceptable that there are now close to 5 million Syrian refugees living in camps.
We must help the most vulnerable. The Scottish Government has provided £500,000 to help the situation in Syria and we have taken nearly 40 per cent of the refugees who arrived before Christmas. We should continue to push the UK Government to do more. That figure of 20,000 over the parliamentary term is not enough. A good start would be to opt into the European scheme and take more refugees.
Jean Urquhart, John Finnie, John Wilson and others asked what action the Scottish Government can take and where its focus should be. We must be willing to help in any way we can to build peace and help the situation in Syria when there is a diplomatic solution—there will be a diplomatic solution, even if we do not know exactly when it will happen, as peace talks are still going on. We must ensure that the conditions are right for when that negotiated settlement comes about.
The First Minister recently announced that the Scottish Government will work with the UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, to provide training for women in the skills that they need to contribute to the peace negotiations. I was at the meeting with the UN special envoy, who made the important point that, in his 30-plus years of conflict resolution experience, women have been the key to finding peace. He believes that sincerely and gave thoughtful reasons why that is the case. It is not a tick-box exercise; training women could fundamentally help to bring peace when a diplomatic solution is found.
It does no one any good to characterise each other as the good guys or the bad guys depending on how people chose to vote in the House of Commons debate or, indeed, on the position that they take in this chamber. I am sure that the decision to extend air strikes was a difficult one even for the Prime Minister, and many of us had sleepless nights over it. However, that decision has been made and, as Jean Urquhart said, we must continue to make the case that there is no military solution and redouble the diplomatic efforts. In the meantime, as the violence unfortunately continues, we can contribute to the efforts to achieve peace and continue to give the most vulnerable a home here in Scotland. I join other members across the chamber in saying that refugees are most certainly welcome here.
Thank you all for taking part in that important debate.
13:21 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Business Motion