The weakness of saving face
A few weeks ago, I explained why I believe that the policy of Chinese engagement by the United Kingdom makes sense, politically, strategically and economically. Successive governments have prosecuted this policy: it is in the national interest to do so and it makes sense for the globe too. It remains a high-wire act, it was ever thus. For those rightly concerned about Chnia’s human rights record, as part of a recent all-party delegation to China, human rights abuses were raised with government officials at every opportunity.
So with a broad political consensus with regard to Anglo-Sino relations, is it too much to hope that there could be one with regard to the crisis in Syria? All of us should hope that a consensus is possible, but the very public way in which our national cluelessness with regard to Syria has been advertised is both extraordinary and baffling.
The government’s intention to intervene – in some way – in Syria, likely by committing British planes to operations in Syrian airspace, has been advertised not only for weeks but months. Opposition members of parliament were even briefed by government ministers regarding the Syrian crisis in anticipation of the House of Commons being asked to approve action of some kind. So this week’s widely briefed government decision to abandon any thought of bringing such a request before parliament represents an extraordinary change of mind and an enormous vacant space where up until recently a considered policy was emerging.
No policy is not an option.
Little Britain
Recent reports have suggested that David Cameron is running out of road and time in his attempts to concoct a public relations ‘concession’ from European Union leaders, and has chosen not to ask the commons for permission to intervene in Syria for fear of losing face, credibility and influence among his EU counterparts. If so, that is an appalling sign of weakness. Worse, it appears that the internal management battles of the Conservative party have now left the United Kingdom without a coherent approach to either the EU or Syria. Both represent an astonishing failure of leadership on so many levels: Cameron’s internal domestic weakness and Britain’s increasingly deteriorating standing in the world.
Neither of these considerations will matter much to those thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing the chaos and cruelty of their country to find a better life in Europe.
No policy is not an option.
As our impotence in the face of the Syrian disaster continues, this does not mean that this does not have broader policy implications elsewhere. Principally, the policy of accepting 4,000 Syrian refugees a year for five years is a woefully inadequate response to a situation in which we propose no other causes of action to deal with the root cause of the refugee crisis.
There are no easy answers to situations as difficult as that posed by Syria, but right now our government’s policy vacuum, complemented only by policy inadequacy, shames us all.
As a country and as a people, we are better than this.
———————————
Jamie Reed MP is member of parliament for Copeland. He writes The Last Word column on Progress and tweets @jreedmp
———————————
An appropriate retort to ‘no policy is not an option’ could be ‘the desire for any action just for the sake of taking action to show we are doing something is negligent’.
I suggest we send Jamie Reed, John Woodcock, Tristram Hunt, Mike Gapes, Simon Danczuk and Luke Akehurst, on a diplomatic mission to the so called Islamic State, in Syria. Hopefully, this may spur these MPs and wannabee to address their deficiencies, when attempting to present a coherent argument and perhaps allow them to hone their debating skills?
It may be advisable to send an additional envoy, who can file regular reports on any progress made. John Rentoul’s contributions to journalism may be somewhat tenuous these days but let’s give him a chance to atone for recent misdemeanors.
Time is of the essence and any contributions towards travel expenses, for this important mission, will be gratefully received. Donations should be sent to :
Progress
Third Floor, 11 Tufton Street
London
SW1P 3QB
You have repeated ‘No policy is not an option’ chorus style so, yes, we have the words and melody by the final chorus. However, by the time you get to the last verse you realise you don’t have a single policy: an obvious ‘something must be done’, which is hardly a difficult enough message for it to be the purpose of the piece. But there is no detail as to why there is no action so far. Theatre too complex to summarise?
Off topic but: Can Emily Benn avoid suspension from the Labour Party, following her 3 retweets (13/09/2015, 21/09/2015 and 15/10/2015) encouraging people to join the Women’s Equality Party, or advocating on their behalf?
http://tinyurl.com/pgw78sl
Naughty Emily seems incapable of heeding advice from fellow councillors, to desist from such activity and is now apparently a serial offender, when it comes to observing the rules of the Labour Party!