THE defeat of the Commons motion to approve the principle of
military action against Syria was an extraordinary moment in this
country's political history. The phrase "a triumph of parliamentary
democracy" inevitably means the defeat of the executive, and this
is generally a messy business. So it proved last week. The people
of Syria might have expected a degree of seriousness, and we have
some sympathy with Michael Gove and his annoyance at Labour
cheerfulness after the vote. It was the right outcome, but it was
achieved, at least in part, for the wrong motives.
To deal first with the least impressive reason for the
Government's 13-vote defeat (we pass over the two ministers who
were out of earshot of the division bell), the accusation that
Labour was playing party politics has traction. As Tony Blair
showed, the use of military force is not an exclusively right-wing
position; yet the Labour whips were busy to ensure that no one
supported the government motion.
Second, it was inevitable that domestic politics played a part,
since this was a vote about British forces, or, at least,
munitions. But a country's reputation should not be a consideration
in an action of this magnitude. On this score, it was alarming to
hear Senator John McCain speaking in support of President Obama:
"The credibility of this country among friends and adversaries
alike would be shredded, and the impact would last not only for
this presidency but for future presidencies as well."
It was more understandable that MPs should baulk at the lack of
irrefutable evidence that President Assad's forces had carried out
the chemical attacks. After the Iraq dossier fiasco, a government
assertion of culpability was never going to be enough. If this were
the only reason, however, the way ought to be open to another
debate when, as seems likely, the evidence becomes clearer. The
Labour Party's requirement that a "significant change" would be
needed for it to acquiesce to a second vote needs explanation.
The Just War criteria include a consideration of the likelihood
of success. If an action meets all the other just-war criteria but
would fail, it should not be tried. This remains the likely outcome
of missile strikes against Syrian military targets. But allowing
chemical attacks to continue is not an option, either. What is
lacking is a set of Just Peace criteria, which would encourage
governments to commit more resources to peaceful resolution.
The best reason for declining to use military force would have
been to prefer a better, more peaceful course of action. This
should involve presenting evidence to President Assad's Russian and
Chinese supporters, and negotiating a solution that not only stops
the bloodshed, but secures Syria's future. The problem with a
military option is that it seems so much easier than this, and is
therefore so much more dangerous.