Blog 2023 Malcolm Blair-Robinson

To many the declaration by President Putin that Russia may be willing to back the use of force in the UN against Syria, if it can be shown beyond doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical atrocity, comes as big a surprise as the UK Parliament’s No vote. Yet, however high the bar he has set, this does, for the first time, offer the prospect of fruitful dialogue over Syria in the G 8 at St. Petersburg.

It is maybe worth listing some of the scenarios which might account for the troubling anomaly that, although all the intelligence services have evidence which points to the Assad government’s complicity in firing of the chemical munitions, it had almost nothing to gain and everything to lose by their use. Conversely the Rebels have everything to gain if their use brings a punishing strike on the regime’s military assets.

There are several possibilities. One is that the equivalent of special forces within the rebel mix, did manage to fire some artillery rockets from government territory into their own lines in order to create a crisis for the regime. This is theoretically plausible and has a clear motive as the rebels are slowly losing the battle, but most discount the logistical capability of rebel forces. Another is that Assad’s brother or some other senior officer in his military ignored orders and used the forbidden munitions. Yet another is a deliberate act by a rival within the government to discredit Assad in order to get rid of him. Intriguing is the possibility that some units overtly loyal to the regime are covertly with the rebels. This is a common feature of civil wars. This could mean the attack originated from government territory deliberately to bring down a western strike which would cripple it.

Putin has hit the nail on the head when he argues not against the use of force, but establishing guilt beyond the doubt as a condition of action. This must be to the satisfaction of not just  the Prosecution, which is the US and some hesitant allies, but to the satisfaction of the Jury, which is all the rest of the world. At the moment the US has managed to convince only its own government. If it wants to act without being cast as a headstrong aggressor angry at being challenged by a weaker party unable to hit back, it will have to convince the rest of the world.

As for its argument that it will embolden Iran and North Korea in their development of nuclear weapons if the US does not act, the opposite is true. It creates an imperative to possess them. None of these conversations would be going on if in response to a surgical strike, Assad had the power to take out New York.

Unfortunately the response to the horror of gassed children foaming at the mouth and dying on camera has revealed a fissure between politicians and people which might prove to be a pivotal revolution in the development of public policy. All across Europe and the United States polls show a very substantial majority of the public against military action against Syria. This is not because ordinary people do not care; it is the opposite. It is because they do care. They care about killing and they do not see how killing more will help.

So far only the British Parliament has shown itself sensitive to public opinion and withheld support for military action. Far from revealing Britain as weak, it has shown her much stronger than even a surprised President Putin supposed. The impact on the US has been to unhinge its foreign policy from the post 9/11 certainty that Britain would always be there. This suddenly stripped the US of its moral authority and made its threat of military action look like naked aggression. For though it always had the muscle, Britain’s greater moral authority, stemming from its record in ending slavery well before America and without bloodshed, standing alone against the Nazis while America hesitated, refusing to join in Viet Nam, its record on overseas aid, human rights and climate change, leavened the image of the imperial bully. This unhappy image, which to be fair Obama has been at pains to erase, is where the neo-con dynasty of Reagan and two Bushes has led the one nation on earth that seeks more than any other to be respected and loved.

Now in Washington there is a scramble to find a new legitimacy for action and a new moral authority through hearings, briefings and a coming vote in Congress. Yet none of this would have been necessary nor would have happened if a week ago Parliament had voted yes. This has demonstrated something that most doubted; in the Special Relationship while America wields the power, Britain holds the licence to use it.

Over the last week we have seen that in Britain, with its archaic and idiosyncratic constitutional arrangements, democracy is responsive to the will of the people. It will be very interesting to see whether in America, with its far more advanced democratic machine, reaching down to the election of every trivial local official, the legislature too is willing to listen. Or whether, in the end, it will do as the Executive and the Military demand.

Of one thing there is a certainty. There may be a multitude of valid moral reasons (although this blog does not think so) for responding with force to this unexpected and in many ways baffling chemical outrage, but saving the face of the United States, which finds itself ensnared its its own foolish red lines, is not one of them.