My thoughts, ahead of the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament this afternoon, on the recent military action taken to degrade the Syrian government's chemical weapons stockpiles.
On the evening of 7 April, the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in the city of Duoma in an attack which has killed up to 75 civilians, including young children, and resulted in up to 500 further casualties. These were not armed combatants, these were innocent men, women and children who were seeking shelter underground.
This attack follows a pattern of the Regime using banned weapons to slaughter innocent civilians: over 800 people were killed and thousands more injured in a chemical attack undertaken by the regime in Ghouta on 21 August 2013, and around 100 people were killed and there were around 500 casualties after the use of sarin gas on 4 April last year.
I know that a few parties believe that we should be responding diplomatically rather than militarily, so I would like to set out what action we have taken so far in this area. After the attack in 2013, the Syrian Regime agreed to dismantle its chemical weapon programme. Russia committed to ensure that the Syrian Regime met this promise, and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would oversee this activity.
Yet a recent report from the OPCW has stated that the Syrian Regime's declaration of its former Chemical Weapons programme is incomplete – that the Regime continues to possess undeclared stocks of nerve agent or precursor chemicals. Further, the OPCW inspectors have investigated previous attacks and on four occasions decided that the Regime was responsible.
Meanwhile attempts to hold those responsible through the UN have been blocked by Russia wielding their vote on the Security Council. There have been six vetoes alone since the beginning of 2017, and we saw them veto a draft Resolution which would have established an independent investigation into the attack of 7 April.
Yes, the only way we will see a long-term peace in Syria is with a political solution. However, the reality is this: diplomatic action on its own will not be any more effective than it has been in the past. We can see a clear pattern of the Syrian Regime ignoring all agreements and commitments and Russia blocking any possibility of international accountability. Those who argue for a solely diplomatic response to this recent slaughter must surely realise that it will have no effect and is to argue for inaction in response to the use of chemical weapons against innocent women and children.
Edmund Burke is attributed as saying that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. We need to decide whether we are content for tyrants to use terrible, banned weapons to indiscriminately slaughter innocent men, women and children.
I am not.
We shouldn’t be getting involved in the Syrian civil war, nor should we be seeking regime change. That is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister has been clear that this was a limited, targeted strike with clear boundaries. By hitting these facilities, we have significantly degraded the Regime’s ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons.
I support the action taken as we have made it harder for Assad to slaughter women and children with banned weapons, an aim which everyone must support, and we have sent a clear message that international norms must be respected and that the international community will not stand for the use of chemical weapons.
With the strikes having already taken place, it is now the role of Parliament to hold the Government to account for this decision. I hope that all my colleagues will agree that as a country we will not stand by when despots use chemical weapons against innocent civilians.