This time around, Britain must back any US action against Assad
PRESIDENT Trump and Theresa May spoke for the second time this week on Thursday evening and agreed that there had to be a joint response to the latest use of chemical weapons in Syria. But what does that mean?
We can dismiss Russian Government claims that the use of chemical weapons in Douma was a hoax as easily as we can dismiss its claims that it was the UK Government that poisoned Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury. The Kremlin’s credibility has never been lower.
But this latest horror in Syria’s civil war has implications that go far beyond credibility. Earlier this month President Trump said America would be pulling its 2,000 troops out of Syria “very, very soon”, sending shockwaves through the region: no one there wants to leave the future of Syria be be negotiated between Russia, Iran, Turkey and jihadist militias.
After seeing the horrific pictures of the slaughter of 70 innocents in Douma on Fox TV — more influential in this White House than any intelligence briefing — President Trump changed his mind. He tweeted that the US would be responding militarily. He even, unusually given his normal reluctance to criticise the Russian President, said that Vladimir Putin bore a share of the responsibility for the “barbaric act”.
President Macron has said France is ready to launch strikes in support of the US as soon as he has more detailed information as to what actually happened.
Here in London, the Cabinet agreed on Thursday that the use of chemical weapons could not “go unchallenged” and that action was needed “to deter their further use”. But there is no decision yet to take military action. Everyone wants to be quite sure about the evidence. There is also a desperate need not just to show that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable but to bring the suffering of the Syrian people to an end.
For Theresa May the domestic politics are also complex. At the end of August 2013, when Parliament was on its summer break, President Obama called David Cameron to ask if the UK would support him with missile strikes against Syria after Assad crossed his “red line” by using chemical weapons. Cameron said he needed a few days and chose to recall Parliament to seek the views of MPs. Amid charges that the Labour Party had reneged on a deal, and recriminations against the 30 Tory rebels who voted against the Government, the House of Commons voted by a majority of 13 not to approve the strikes.
President Obama initially said he would go ahead anyway but then decided to consult Congress. When it became clear that the votes weren’t there, he opted for a diplomatic solution with the Russians instead, which was supposed to have removed all Syria’s stocks of chemical weapons. Obama later confirmed that the decision of the UK not to join him in thing military action was one of the reason she decided not to proceed.
The former president remains proud of that decision, in part because he is not convinced that it would have effectively ended Syria’s chemical weapons capability. But the vote in the House of Commons damaged our standing as the partner of choice to whom America could always turn in time of need, as it had in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the more so when the US began to worry about the decline in our military capabilities and that the UK was resiling from its Nato commitment to spend two per cent of GDP on defence.
All this will be on Theresa May’s mind as she talks to her military chiefs, her national security adviser, Mark Sedwill, and her key ministers about her options should President Trump decide he wants to strike Syria. Parliament does not return from its Easter recess until Monday so she could take supportive military action before then without too much political difficulty. After all, despite the protests of the Labour Opposition, there is no obligation to seek Parliament’s approval in advance.
But once Parliament is back? Would the question then have to be put? If it was, would MPs vote in favour? The polling suggests the public is unenthusiastic and, of course, the Government has no majority. To misquote Oscar Wilde, holding and losing one vote on joining our closest ally against a Syrian dictator using chemical weapons might be regarded as a misfortune. To lose a second would look distinctly careless.
It would also raise questions about our military capability, about the Government’s broader relationship with Team Trump — which it still hopes will deliver a quick and generous free trade agreement after Brexit — and about our ability to influence US foreign policy. The UK has been siding with the US against Iran at the UN Security Council on human rights and Yemen in the hope that Trump will listen to reason when he again reviews the Iran nuclear deal next month. Will he, if we can’t deliver on Syria?
President Macron is popular in the White House, delighted Mr Trump inviting him to the Bastille Day parade last July, and will soon be paying the first state visit of the Trump presidency. French willingness to be part of an international response in Syria is very welcome. But we should not leave the European contribution to Paris just when Britain is preparing to leave the EU, raising questions about our future role as a global player.
So in No 10 the hope must be that military action, if that is what is decided, is begun very soon. The Prime Minister can then tell the House what she has decided, and why, when it returns next week. This is not existential, like Brexit. But a great deal is at stake: our international standing, our readiness to stand up for our values and for international law, and relations with our single most important ally, the United States.
⬤ Sir Peter Westmacott was British Ambassador to the United States, 2012-16
Parliament does not return until Monday so she could take military action without much political difficulty