Richard Harrington MP has issed the below statement on the debate and vote on Syria and Chemical Weapons in Parliament
I voted with the Government, not because I believe in full scale military intervention, far from it, but because I strongly believe we have a duty to show Assad and dictators around the world that the use of chemical weapons against their own people will not be tolerated; and to show the people of Syria that not only has their plight not been forgotten, or worse; witnessed but not acted upon.
“Following the result of lasts nights votes the Government must act according to the will of Parliament but I hope that we will be able to send a clear message to Assad and the people of Syria that the murderous regime cannot act in the way it has without recourse.
“The ongoing civil war in Syria is extremely complex and there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ side. I have previously publically opposed the arming of Syrian rebels and this is something that I still stand by. The motion before Parliament yesterday was not a matter of taking sides on the conflict but to take efforts to prevent the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people, and I am concerned that other Members did not support this." Richard made the following speech in the debate in Parliament, explaining his decision.
It is very easy to be against taking action in Syria. There are many compelling arguments to do nothing.
- It is expensive
- The UK should not be interfering with foreign countries and is fundamentally wrong to do so
- Unsure of consequences in Syria or further afield
- No exit strategy
- The history of Afghanistan and Iraq loom heavy in peoples minds
All these arguments have strong merit and are compelling in their own right. Furthermore it seems clear that there is very little appetite from the British public for further military engagement in the Middle East.
Because of the merits of the above arguments I could not stand here today and argue for full scale military intervention to force regime change or bring about a Western style democracy. All my instincts are that these are things that we cannot and should not get involved in.
Like all colleagues I have received a great deal of correspondence on this matter over recent days, largely against military intervention. However one piece of correspondence from a constituent summed up the crucial question- should there be very precise, selective action to prevent further use of chemical weapons? I, like my constituent, believe so following confirmation of the Weapons Inspectors report.
We do have to accept that there may be unintended consequences of any action taken. As Danny Finkelstein argues in the Times yesterday, upon the start of military action that history has deemed to be the right decision, there was no guarantee of any consequential action; true from Kennedy and the Cuban Missile crisis to Tony Blair and Serbia.
Most importantly whilst we cannot guarantee or fully predict any outcome of action in Syria we can assume with a greater degree of certainty that no action will allow Assad to continue carrying out chemical attacks on his own people.
I agree with the majority of my constituents that full scale military intervention would be wrong but if we have anything in our power whatsoever to prevent further atrocities we can and must act.
We should do all we can on a humanitarian level to support the people of Syria, whom should be the overriding concern on any decision made today.
It is my responsibility here today to represent the views of my constituents, not blindly following party lines and I hope that my constituents whether agreeing with intervention or not will appreciate the gravity and difficulty of this decision.
In my lifetime I have spoken to the survivors of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and visited the sites of genocide in Rwanda, Darfur and the DRC and I feel that if there is any way in which my vote in this House today can do anything that may deter a ruthless dictator from gassing innocent children it is my duty to support it.
Until now Assad has been able to carry out horrific crimes against his own people with little to no consequence. Whilst we cannot prevent all these crimes a line has clearly been crossed and if we have the power to reduce the regime’s capabilities to carry out chemical warfare then we must do so. This also serves as a warning to the rest of the world that such crimes will not be tolerated anywhere.