Chloe Smith: Friday 4pm update on Syria

In recent days I asked for my constituents’ views on the situation in Syria.  I was very grateful to have your responses.

I knew that my one vote could not reflect the wishes of everyone in my constituency, and that there is a tremendous strength of feeling on all sides of the argument.  I have done my best to closely scrutinise developments and the evidence available before voting.

I voted in favour of the motion presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister last night, which you can see here:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmagenda/ob130829.htm.

Whatever the media says, if you read the motion I believe most people will find the words reasonable.  It answers many of the questions put to me by constituents, and I judged it was fair to support it.  Here are the reasons why.

First of all, the motion was crystal clear that there should be no direct British involvement in any military action without a further vote in the House of Commons.  This is very important.  I therefore want to be clear:  I did not vote last night to allow military action.

As you can see, the motion prioritised the need to proceed consensually, working with the UN.  The Prime Minister’s arguments to Parliament added to this, and he also tackled head-on what we all know, which is that most people feel extremely anxious about our foreign affairs after Britain’s experience in Iraq.  You can read his arguments here:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130829/debindx/130829-x.htm

The motion also pressed what I have discussed in correspondence with constituents before the debate:  this is solely a humanitarian question.  When anyone talks of action, it should be action to deter the use of appalling chemical weapons – nothing wider.  This was not about regime change or an invasion, and nor would I support that after Iraq although of course I was not in Parliament then.  Like our brief intervention in Libya, which did successfully stop a massacre in Benghazi, I believe we stood a chance of helping people.  Unlike in Iraq, other Arab states are asking for our help, as you may know from the Arab League’s statement of 27^th August.  This comes after years of diplomacy in the region, often led by Britain.

The motion sought to stop one man from continuing to use horrific weapons against his own people and committing war crimes.

Documents shown to Parliament yesterday from the impartial Joint Intelligence Committee deal unpretentiously with the question of Assad’s responsibility.  It seems to me that Assad is responsible, sufficiently beyond reasonable doubt.  He has used these weapons 14 times before and no doubt will again.

The motion I voted for was right to put first the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law.  In order to vote sensibly on it, I asked myself the question:  should we stand by now if we think that this prohibition is important?

Some ask: would our action make the situation worse?  I have asked myself also: would taking no action make the situation better or worse?  In my view it was the right thing to do now to vote in Parliament in favour of upholding international law.  If no one did this, surely Assad will do it again, and other dictators and murderers around the world will also be emboldened.  I voted in favour of the motion because I believe that if nations like Britain stand by, the risk to the whole world is increased.  There is no “no risk” option when you try to take a choice in the House of Commons.

An important question is why Britain, of all countries, should have been asked to make this kind of statement.  Obviously we shouldn’t be the world’s only policeman, and the motion was clear that we should continue to follow a UN process because a consensual approach is better.  However, we are one of only five on the UN Security Council, and ultimately it is important that we stand up for what we believe in.  I voted as I did because I believe that chemical weapons are heinous and that they should remain prohibited.

As you will know this morning, the motion did not pass the Commons and so the Prime Minister has respected Parliament’s decision.  There will be no British action.

I hope this helps explain my vote.