Posted on 2014-09-25 | 01:12

Roger’s statement on tomorrow’s vote in the House of Commons is as follows:

IS is a uniquely barbaric organisation which has an avowed commitment to killing anybody who does not subscribe to its narrow sectarian view of Islam, and glories in beheading people who will not convert to their views. IS has even been ostracised by Al-Qaeda! Having said that, the situation in Iraq and Syria and, indeed, in the wider Middle East is not as black and white as some would like to portray it.

Without going over the history of Iraq, after the disastrous invasion the current Iraqi Government was elected (however imperfectly) and is a legitimate Government of the country. The new Government has committed itself to include Sunni members in the administration, unlike its predecessor Mr Malaki, whose refusal to include any Sunnis was a major contributing factor to the rise of IS.

  The new Government has requested that America and other countries give air support in trying to stop the progress of IS, much of which has been achieved with weaponry abandoned by the Iraqi army when whole brigades fled and left everything behind. The Obama administration, which is under pressure from the Republicans and the religious right, have put together a ‘Coalition’ of 40 countries, including five in the Middle East. As the request from the Iraqi Government is a legitimate one I have made it clear that I do not object to the United Kingdom giving logistical support, such as use of the British base in Cyprus, to the Americans and to other countries which are part of this Coalition.

  I have also made it absolutely clear that I am not in favour of NATO, as an organisation, being part of this grouping, and I believe that the Members of the Arab League have to take as much responsibility as America or anybody else in combatting IS. The five Arab countries which, allegedly, have joined the Coalition have got some extremely sophisticated aircraft at their disposal and these ought to be deployed in response to the request from the Iraqi Government.

The situation in Iraq is, therefore, entirely different from Syria. It is quite true that IS has bases in both Iraq and Syria, but Syria is in the middle of a civil war between the Assad Government and various other groupings of which IS is just one. There has not been any request by the Assad Government, or indeed by any of the various opposition forces, for outside intervention to combat IS. Before any outside intervention takes place this matter needs to be debated at the United Nations and authorisation given by the Security Council for any outside involvement. This will not happen because Russia will not agree to any intervention in Syria, which is its long-standing ally in the Middle East, and which Russia considers to be very much part of its sphere of influence. The rise of IS ought to be as much a threat to Russia as to anybody else in the world, and if Russia will not authorise a UN Mandate for outside international intervention in Syria against IS then there is nothing to stop it from taking action itself which, incidentally, would be very much welcomed by its allies the Assad Government.

Because there has been no UN Mandate for action to be taken against IS in Syria I am not supportive of the airstrikes that America has engaged in. I reaffirm that any action taken in Syria has to have international legitimacy through the UN which, incidentally, has a clear obligation to safeguard communities such as the Syrian Kurds or Christians who are threatened with genocidal extermination.

  In a nutshell, therefore, my position is that I have no objection to Britain giving logistical support to America and to the Coalition which it put together in response to the request by the elected Government of Iraq. I believe that British involvement should be limited to logistical support and not military support, and that there is a clear obligation on countries in the Arab League to respond to the request for assistance from the Government of Iraq.

For the reasons I have stated, the situation in Syria is totally different and any outside intervention should have the legitimacy of international law through the UN. I am not, therefore, supportive of the action that America has already taken without this international legitimacy, and although the Motion before the House of Commons on Friday contains much with which I would not disagree I will not be voting for it.