Labour’s leadership candidates must face up to the hard choices of applying progressive values in a changing Middle East, writes Mary Creagh

I took part in four Labour leadership hustings, organised by Progress, the Fabian Society and the GMB trade union before I withdrew from the leadership process. As candidates to be not just the Labour leader but also a future prime minister, we were asked just one question on foreign policy – at Progress, where I condemned the government’s failure to offer asylum to more Syrian refugees. I found this focus on domestic issues extraordinary, especially given the looming European Union referendum which has at its heart the question: ‘What is Britain’s place in the world?’

As progressives we have to choose and shape Britain’s future place in Europe and in the world. As the global village becomes smaller and more connected, we know we must build a world where power, wealth and opportunity is in the hands of the many, not the few.

The recent horrific terrorist attack in Tunisia, as well as the Greek economic crisis, have put foreign policy and international security questions back on the agenda. Michael Fallon, the secretary of state for defence, has raised the possibility of airstrikes against Isis targets in Syria. United Kingdom forces are already engaged in airstrikes in Iraq, after a parliamentary vote in September 2014 opposed by just 43 MPs. But the Tunisian terrorist was trained at a jihadi camp in western Libya, not Syria.

In August 2013 the Labour Party voted against the government motion to back military action in Syria. The motion was triggered by Bashar al-Assad’s large scale chemical weapon attack on the civilian population of Ghoutah, eastern Damascus. There was international revulsion at the attack which killed over 1400 people, including 426 children. A ‘red line’ had been crossed. The August attack took place during a visit by United Nations chemical weapons inspectors, who were investigating allegations of previous chemical weapon attacks. German, French, US and UK intelligence pointed to the Syrian government forces being responsible. The UK’s Joint Intelligence committee report to parliament before the vote stated that chemical weapons had been used by the Assad regime on at least 14 previous occasions. Assad’s war crime was later confirmed as a sarin gas attack by UN inspectors.

There was a widely held view that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect gave a legal basis for intervention.

There was a widely held view that the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect gave a legal basis for intervention. The Labour party leadership had set a series of tests for David Cameron, including the involvement of the UN, clear evidence of Syrian responsibility, and a motion to the UN security council. We wanted action to be time limited and with specific objectives, to have a clear basis in international law and to be subject to a further vote in the House of Commons.

Much of that was included in the government’s motion but we tabled a Labour manuscript amendment on the morning of 29 August. The assumption was that we would vote for our motion and lose, and then the Tories would put their motion and win. On any future government motion, specifically authorising air strikes, Labour would, in all probability, have backed the government.

The government motion however was unexpectedly defeated by 13 votes. Cameron had failed to do the heavy lifting with his backbenchers, and just 272 of the coalition’s 363 MPs supported the government. 285 MPs voted against the motion. 30 Tory MPs and 11 Lib Dems rebelled, with 2 ministers – Justine Greening and Mark Simmonds – missing the crucial second vote. With 30 Labour MPs absent, the Tory whips’ failure to bring all government MPs back from their holidays had contributed to the defeat. Parliament was stunned. Cameron’s fury at his shock defeat led to him ruling out further votes on military action. And on the news that same evening we learnt that a school in Syria had suffered a napalm attack.

The vote reverberated around the world. President Obama’s plan for airstrikes that weekend was suspended. His attempts to get backing for airstrikes in Congress faltered. US secretary of state John Kerry said he had no confidence the Syrians would put their weapons under international control, unintentionally offering an opening to the Syrian regime. The Russians stepped in to facilitate the destruction of chemical weapons under international supervision. Face was saved all round. And the west’s failure to protect the Syrian people from Assad’s state terror opened the door to Isis stepping in and offering resistance to his regime.

The war in Syria had at that point claimed 100,000 lives and led to two million people fleeing their homes. Airstrikes against Assad might have frozen the conflict. They might have offered opportunities to the opposition to defeat him and led to a new government. They might have defeated him and led to extremist sectarian chaos and a refugee crisis. We will never know the cost of the action that we did not take. We can only count the terrible cost of our inaction.

Two years on, there are over 260,000 dead and 4.7 million refugees. Assad’s barrel bombs continue to rain down on civilians and humanitarian aid convoys. There is no end in sight to the conflict. There is a refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. A quarter of Lebanon’s population are now refugees. There is no confidence in the West’s ability to tackle the conflict.

The extremists have benefitted from chaos in Syria and that chaos has spread to Iraq. Isis has gained ground, money, weapons and fighters. It has used the internet to recruit alienated westerners to its nihilistic death cult. It also controls an area the size of Great Britain with a population of six million people. It captured Ramadi in May, 70 miles west of Baghdad and Palmyra, east of Damascus in June. This progress has occurred despite UK involvement in airstrikes in Iraq and US backed airstrikes in Syria. This ungoverned space is a breeding ground for terror attacks in the Middle East and on the west in the same way as Afghanistan was 12 years ago and Somalia is today.

As the government mulls the possibility of airstrikes over Syria there are big unanswered questions from the Conservatives. What will they prioritise in their Strategic Defence and Security Review? What is their strategic approach to the conflict and are they prepared to work with the UN and neighbouring countries to achieve a political solution to the crisis in the Middle East? Is there a strategy to stop Isis in Libya, Northern Nigeria and Yemen?

And for the future leader of the Labour party there will be choices too. Choices around how to apply progressive values in a changing, challenging world. Hard choices in which he or she must learn the lesson that failure to act carries consequences every bit as grave as the consequences of action.

———————————-

Mary Creagh is shadow secretary of state for international development

———————————-

Image: Mustafa Khayat