Should Britain Intervene In Syria?
This month a huge amount of footage1,2 has been released both online and via the media showing what appears to be a chemical attack on the Syrian people. Immediately, Basher al Assad’s regime was deemed responsible by both the US and UK governments despite the UN investigation into the attack being unfinished.
Cameron cannot be '100% certain of Assad’s guilt
David Cameron has recalled parliament for a debate which is to take place later on today4. However, it has been said by some that foreign secretary, William Hague, and David Cameron have been too quick to identify Assad as the culprit of the attacks.
Many now call for a military strikes as both a punitive measure for Assad’s alleged attacks and as a deterrent for any future use of chemical weapons by the regime. Others say that a military intervention will simply cause a huge escalation in diplomatic tensions between the West, on one hand, and Russia, China and Iran on the other, which could have detrimental impacts for international diplomacy. In this time of mass confusion and unknowing it is hard to determine what is best, both for Britain and for the Syrian people.
The argument expressed by David Cameron has been one of a highly moralistic nature. In interviews with the BBC he has said the world ‘should not stand by’6 with William Hague adding that such ‘a terrible act’7 cannot be ignored by the international community. However, many have pointed out that the UN are yet to bring back findings of their investigation into the attacks. So there is yet to be anyway that is 100% sure of the perpetrator of the attacks. Labour have said they will vote against the motion put forward by the government unless certain amendments are made to it. These recommendations include;
“- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings,...