The British parliament voted on Wednesday to authorise the military bombing of ISIL targets in Syria. Prime minister David Cameron made his argument and the majority of British MPs accepted it. But far too many of them – and far too many of the British public – accepted it, or rejected it, for entirely the wrong reasons.
The issue of ISIL is a serious one, and it is part and parcel of an even direr topic: the ongoing devastation of Syria. That in itself is part of the abuse of the revolutionary uprising that began in Syria nearly five years ago. But far too much of the UK’s intelligentsia – whether elected in parliament or unelected in the media – have ignored much of that.
The discussion since the Paris terror attacks claimed by ISIL should have been about how the UK and the international community end the destruction of Syria and the killing of Syrian civilians while also minimising the threat from groups like ISIL outside of the country’s borders.
MPs and the British media should have been discussing what effect the extension of Britain’s military campaign against ISIL in Iraq to Syria would have, both in terms of how much it degrades ISIL’s capabilities and the potential harm to civilians in Syria.
Instead, the debate in the UK was far too parochial, making the issue of military action in Syria not only all about Britain, but, bizarrely, all about partisan politics within Britain. If that was not bad enough, the discussion was all too often combined with a dogmatic and blinkered view of the region, where agency to Syrians was denied, and their voices hidden from the public.
Now that the vote is done, we will all have to bear the consequences – but what a message to send to the international community. The UK has the potential to play an incredibly fruitful and beneficial role in the Arab world – if it takes the needs and human development of the region seriously – but the past couple of weeks have not been terribly edifying in the slightest.
We’ve seen, for example, the suggestion that bombing ISIL is going to “increase risk” in the UK. This is a strange argument. Are Syrians themselves not already at risk from ISIL? Or our allies in Europe also not already at risk? Are we so blinkered that we consider ourselves immune from harm from a barbaric cult that has already publicly threatened our security on numerous occasions? Do we not take seriously our security forces when they say plots have already been foiled several times in the last few months alone?
The discussions have been centred within the left of British politics around the notion that Labour MPs and supporters should rally in support of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn. Is it really the leadership of Mr Corbyn that is the issue of discussion here? Are the lives and futures of Syrian civilians, who have already suffered so tremendously in the last four years, of so little consequence, that we allow the discussion around Syria to turn into a referendum on a party leader’s leadership ambitions?
On the flip side, we’ve seen Mr Cameron begin these debates in a respectful manner, although more recently he has descended into a wholly different place.
“You should not be walking through the lobbies with Jeremy Corbyn and a bunch of terrorist sympathisers,” Mr Cameron was quoted as having told a meeting of Conservative MPs.
There are a number of reasons why MPs and others might be sceptical about the strategy being proposed – precisely because there are so many questions that are involved in its execution. But that does not make them “terrorist sympathisers”.
It is not entirely clear, for example, that this strategy will actually result in ending the Syria conflict more quickly and particularly in ending the rule of Bashar Al Assad. On both sides of British politics, there are unfortunately far too many who are making excuses for his appalling and abysmal rule.
Against the backdrop of barrel bombs and brutality, Mr Al Assad should have no friends in the corridors of power in the UK. But it seems he does indeed have friends who argue he is “defending civilisation”, and is the “lesser evil” against ISIL.
Mr Al Assad’s forces, however, have killed scores more civilians than ISIL. He remains firmly part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
These kinds of discussions are entirely normal, because Syrian voices are rarely included. Many briefings and panels have been held in Whitehall for opinion makers and politicians but few have included input from Syrians. On the contrary – Syrians have been directly and specifically excluded because they say things that interrupt the comfortable narratives of both the left and the right. This is both shameful and poor policy. Alas, it is a common malaise that we see when the Arab world is discussed.
The region has huge problems that the world must address because what happens in Syria has repercussions far beyond its borders. The UK should be taking a lead in this – and doing so in a way that befits how people in the region actually live and see the situation.
Unfortunately, the last few weeks has been more about cartoonish politics and British political neuroses rather than the suffering in Syria. That must change – both Britons and Syrians deserve much better than that.
Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and a non-resident senior fellow at the Rafik Hariri Centre for the Middle East at the Atlantic Council in Washington DC
On Twitter: @hahellyer