Airstrikes must have legal basis
YOUR report on government plans to bomb IS forces in Syria [“UK air strikes in Syria ‘are now the lesser of two evils’ ”, July 2] did not consider one important aspect.
However, I was pleased to note that Labour shadow defence spokesman Vernon Coker said in Parliament on Thursday in the debate on defence and international affairs that while Labour “stand[s] ready to work with the Government to defeat ISIL and will carefully consider any proposals that they decide to bring forward...”, he qualified this by insisting, inter
alia, on knowing “its legal basis”. SNP foreign affairs spokesman Alex Salmond also pointed out that the Attorney General’s legal justification, provided nearly two years ago to cover the then coalition government’s plans to bomb President Assad’s military infrastructure, does not cover the present circumstances, and insisted “if that is to be the legal basis, we must be given, and presumably will be given, a further summary note
Having lost more than 630 British military personnel in the Middle East we should be aware of mission creep once again
Dr David Lowry
explaining the legal basis for participation in Syria”.
In addition to the Attorney General’s legal advice, I think the UK should seek a UN Security Council endorsement if President Assad does not agree to British bombers operating over his sovereign state, as is still recognised by the UN. Having lost more than 630 British military personnel and more than 10,000 seriously injured in the Middle East region, we should be aware of mission creep once again. Dr David Lowry, former director, European Proliferation Information Centre
REGARDING UK policy in Syria, Baroness Anelay, Minister of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gives three reasons why we cannot work with President Assad to end the civil war in that country. These are: he cannot unite the Syrian people, he cannot win international backing and he cannot defeat IS.
Those are not good enough reasons. The question is, would the chances of peace in Syria be better if we were to work with Assad?
It is agreed by all that only boots on the ground can eradicate IS from Syria. The possibility that those boots could be worn by Syrian soldiers cannot be dismissed out of hand. If there were to be a ceasefire between Assad and moderate rebels, the Syrian army, possibly boosted by some rebels and US firepower, could destroy IS in Syria, making it much easier to deal with elsewhere. The Syrian army is unique in that only it can eradicate IS in a way that ensures there is not ongoing chaos afterwards, in which other fanatics arise to take their place.
Is the possibility of a ceasefire not one that must be considered? Does the US, as the most powerful country involved, not have a moral duty to work with Russia to this end? Does David Cameron not have a moral responsibility to use his influence with Obama to get this under way? Dr Brendan O’Brien