Well, that was quick, wasn’t it? Over in a flash, eh? I mean Britain’s period of global irrelevance — the humiliating epoch that began last Thursday evening with the parliament’s decision to vote against military action against Syria. It only lasted about 24 hours, this national eclipse and yet it was long enough for people to talk perhaps the most concentrated and undiluted nonsense we have ever heard. We were finished as a world player, said a more than normally depressed Paddy Ashdown. It was the biggest fiasco since Suez, said others, the most epic parliamentary cock-up since Lord North.
UK had flunked the global virility test and in military terms it was a bunch of useless, toothless eunuchs who no longer had the political will to waggle our missiles at anyone. The French were tougher than Britons, for goodness’ sake! The French — the number one buddies of the Americans! The old US-UK special relationship was dead, said influential newspapers, and there was no reason why Barack Obama should listen to UK ever again. Was there? Well, I couldn’t believe the nonsense I read last Friday: Anyone who travels will be amazed at the continuing cultural, political, commercial and intellectual influence of this country — to say nothing of the multiple engagements of British troops overseas.
And by Monday, the self-abasement was looking positively ridiculous. We did indeed hear from the White House last Saturday; and did Obama announce that he was going to blast on regardless — ignore parliament and send the Tomahawks down Bashar Al Assad’s chimney? Was he going to get up in a crate with Francois Hollande and start pounding Damascus from 30,000 feet? On the contrary: He decided that the views of London were too important to ignore. He iced the plan to bomb today and he announced a postponement of at least 10 days — so that he could actually imitate David Cameron, emulate parliament, and have a proper debate in Congress. That delay is a huge tribute to the British prime minister. It is a recognition of the role he has played in leading the response to the atrocities of Al Assad of Syria. It is also, frankly, a reflection of the quandary we all face.
It seems overwhelmingly likely that the forces of the Syrian regime have indeed used chemical weapons and killed hundreds of civilians in an act of utter savagery. I wrote a few weeks ago of my deep anxieties about Britain getting embroiled in Syria — and I still have them. But to use gas for mass murder is a crime that one cannot allow to go unpunished. It is no use saying that we let Saddam Hussain get away with using chemicals at Halabja: So we did, but doing the wrong thing once is no justification for doing it again. Nor is it relevant that the Americans used defoliants and napalm in Vietnam. Even if you accept the moral equivalence, one form of barbarism does not legitimate another. This was a peculiarly nasty attack on innocent people and the most likely account seems to be that it was perpetrated by Bashar Al Assad’s sinister brother, in the belief that it would teach rebel communities a lesson they would never forget — and that the West would never get round to a response.
As the debate in British parliament showed, there was some shrewdness in that view. It is thankfully very difficult to get democratic politicians to vote for military action. They require hard facts and there are still many questions to which the answers seem vague at best. There are some who say that the gas was unleashed not by the Al Assad regime, but by rogue elements. You will find plenty of seemingly authoritative reports on the web — mainly emanating from Russia or Iran — that suggest the chemicals were in fact in the possession of the rebels, or had been supplied by the Saudis.
There may still be some who are puzzled as to why the regime was so arrogant and insouciant as to use chemicals when they knew the weapons inspectors were nearby. All these questions can no doubt be answered — and perhaps already have been — but you can see why Obama would want them properly masticated in a debate. Then there is an even more difficult question: What does the “strike” consist of, and what is it meant to achieve? Is this a slap on the wrist, or six of the best? Or is it regime change? The world needs to hear how Obama’s plan will be commensurate and effective — and that discussion will now take place in Congress.
If the US president can articulate such a mission, I doubt that US legislators will stand in his way. There is one British figure that excites the unanimous scorn of all American politicians and that is Neville Chamberlain. The Americans have a horror of appeasement and the notion of failing to stand up to dictators. After due consideration, I bet Washington will endorse a limited and punitive strike against Al Assad — provided it can be shown that the intervention will not escalate and provided there is no hint that it will lead to boots on the ground. By then, too, the evidence against Al Assad may have solidified. The UN will have had longer to report. If there is new and better evidence that inculpates Al Assad, I see no reason why the Government should not lay a new motion before parliament, inviting British participation — and then it is Ed Miliband, not David Cameron, who will face embarrassment. The Labour leader has been capering around pretending to have stopped an attack on Syria — when his real position has been more weaselly. If you add the Tories and Blairites together, there is a natural majority for a calibrated and limited response to a grotesque war crime.
I predict that by the end of this episode, it will be Labour that looks divided and David Cameron who looks the statesman. In the meantime, the West has longer to weigh up the two evils — doing nothing and doing something. That is a delay for which we can thank the British parliament and proof (if you really needed it) that Britain matters a great deal.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London, 2013
Boris Johnson in Mayor of London.
