Assad? The government can’t even spell it

September 3, 2013 1:15 pm

Now that the dust has settled a little after last Thursday’s votes on Syria, it is worth reflecting on what took place and why.

The position which Labour took in those votes was both coherent and principled. Central to our view was the Government had re-called Parliament and was asking MPs to support military action according to a timetable which was unreasonable and unnecessary. Even when the Government came forward with a weaker motion it was still Cameron’s intention to have a vote which would “in principle” commit us to military action.

The Prime Minister recalled Parliament so he could demonstrate that he was somehow ‘leading’ the march towards military action. And yet he wished to do this on the basis of evidence which was insubstantial and when he had no clear plan about what military action would entail, what its objectives would be, and what its consequences might be.

On the issue of the evidence of chemical weapons use, last Thursday, the only ‘evidence’ Cameron was able to present to the House was a 1½ page memo from the Joint Intelligence Committee. This memo was devoid of specifics and even spelt the name of Assad incorrectly. This was not the compelling body of evidence which Labour was asking for. At the very least, Members believed that they were being bounced into a commitment to military action and that there was no reason why a decision had to be taken before UN inspectors had reported their findings.

The legality of military action was also far from clear and this was compounded by an absence of any commitment, initially at least, to attempt to engage the UN in any decision on military action. But I think it is true to say that it was the lack of any real thought or indeed the refusal to express any opinions, about what military action would mean and could lead to, was of understandable concern to Labour MPs.

In the debate, Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary during the time of the Iraq War don’t forget, made the telling point that cruise missiles could not target chemical weapons as this would lead to the release of agents into the atmosphere and therefore any strikes would have to focus on Assad’s operational and military command structure. This would inevitably mean that any military strike would be of material assistance to the Syrian rebels. Jack believed that there may be a justification for this, but argued that we ought to be clear that the consequences of assisting the opposition had to be thought through extremely carefully. The opposition of course contains extreme elements, such as al-Qaeda. There was no indication that the Government had given military action the necessary detailed thought.

MPs were also acutely aware that the Syrian civil war could escalate into a broader regional conflict, involving in one way or another Israel, Russia, Iran, Turkey and indeed potentially other states. It is extremely unlikely that military action would simply mean “a shot across Assad’s bows”. If it were, there would be little point to the action.

These were and still are difficult and complex issues. Everyone in the House shares a revulsion at the use of chemical weapons. But we are also acutely aware that a knee-jerk reaction could have made a bad situation even worse. Last Thursday, David Cameron failed to win the argument in favour of armed intervention. Leadership is about winning the arguments, but it also about listening and taking people with you. This of course requires sound judgement. The debate on Syria demonstrated that David Cameron lacks these qualities. Equally, it showed that Ed Miliband doesn’t.

Wayne David is Shadow Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform and MP for Caerphilly

 

  • RogerMcC

    As it is written in Arabic there is no more a standard English spelling of Assad than there is for Gaddafi or Muhammad.

    Indeed a letter-for-letter transliteration as favoured by most actual Arabic scholars would be Asad (or rather al-Asad) – that double-s is a attempt to render the hissing sound of Arabic س

    So I suspect that your briefing was written by an actual Arabic speaker and is actually ‘right’ and its everyone else’s spelling that is ‘wrong’.

    If I were Mark/Wayne I would amend this piece accordingly before some snarky Tory like ‘Guido Fawkes’ mocks you for it.

  • Danny Sweeney

    Before anyone accuses me of missing the point, I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of this article. However, there is something which I find deeply disturbing. As someone that is dyslexic, and is keen to promote issues around disability and specific learning difficulties, it worries me that people in our party will use something such as a spelling mistake to draw attention to what is obviously a very valid point.
    While I know that in today’s world we have spell check and such legislation should be checked and and edited, are we really saying that these mistakes should not happen?
    If so then I am forced to draw the conclusion that we are also say that dyslexics such as myself are not good enough to work in such roles?
    I know I’m being somewhat pedantic, but what if some future legislation is written by someone that is hugely innovative and effective, but has a spelling mistake? Do we then just dismiss it as meaningless mumbo-jumbo?
    This is the ugly side of politics where we point to little things, that miss the bigger picture, the kind of politics that we deplore when Cameron laughs at Ed Balls’ stammer, or George Osborne dismisses Gordon Brown as Autistic.
    I love our party, but I worry what happens when we point to the wrong things to criticize, that we will put off people with disabilities, or women, or BAME and LGBT community.
    I’m sure the comment was made off-the-cuff and did not think about this, but this is why I fell the need to post this, if nothing else, to raise awareness within our party.

  • whs1954

    “This memo was devoid of specifics and even spelt the name of Assad incorrectly.”

    These things are what happens when you are asked to present something in a hurry. Given the timescales the Foreign Office etc were working to, and Ed Miliband’s need to have this evidence asap and well before the debate, what did you expect? Jam on it?

Latest

  • Featured Talk of a breakaway “Workers’ Party” is dangerous and wrong

    Talk of a breakaway “Workers’ Party” is dangerous and wrong

    On Friday, for the second time in recent weeks, Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey said something really important and dangerous that ought to have caused a reaction across the entire labour movement and Labour Party. But virtually no one reacted. According to the Guardian Len “repeated his warning that his members may force a split from Labour and urge support for a new workers’ party if Miliband fails to set out a radical vision to inspire people before the next […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Jim Murphy has set out an ambitious (and Labour) vision for development

    Since its earliest days Labour has been an internationalist party and proud of it, too. From Keir Hardy and Harold Wilson to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, those who shaped Labour’s vision in the 20th and early 21st Century regarded the fight against poverty overseas as a natural extension of the fight against poverty at home. If Labour wins in 2015, we look forward to our proud tradition continuing. But with the clear focus of the current leadership on the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Party democracy is important, so let’s fight for it

    Contrary to popular belief (and by popular belief, I mean the belief that prevails amongst the Shadow Cabinet and its apparatchiks) the Labour Party does not exist as a fan club for the Parliamentary faction. The Labour Party is an instrument through which ordinary people can shape their own lives and change the future of this country in a direction that is beneficial to our people. The recent decision by the Labour leadership to vote with the Coalition and implement […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What can Labour offer young people?

    What can Labour offer young people?

    Tony Blair proclaimed in 1997 that his three main priorities in government were ‘education, education, education.’ This has not translated to an increase in votes from young people.  Voter turnout between 1997 and 2005 amongst those aged 18-24 fell from an estimated 54.1% of this age range in 1997, down to 38.2% in 2005.  By contrast, voter turnout amongst those who are aged over 65 has never fallen below 70% since 1964.  As voters aged over 65 are more likely […]

    Read more →
  • News Iraq Inquiry report now expected in 2015

    Iraq Inquiry report now expected in 2015

    Sir John Chilcot’s report into the Iraq War is now not expected to be published until spring 2015, leaving worries for Labour as to how it will affect the election campaign. The Independent reports that “discussions between the inquiry and the Cabinet Office remain deadlocked, and a year-long stand-off is now unlikely to be resolved before the current parliamentary session ends. Even if a deal were reached over the summer recess, legal protocols and procedures would push the Iraq report’s […]

    Read more →